top of page
AI Video, Copyright, and the Turning Point No One Wanted to Talk About

AI Video, Copyright, and the Turning Point No One Wanted to Talk About

19 February 2026

Paul Francis

Want your article or story on our site? Contact us here

For years, artificial intelligence has been quietly absorbing the creative world.

Illustrators watched as models produced images in their style. Writers saw language models trained on books they never licensed. Voice actors heard digital replicas of their tone and cadence. Photographers discovered fragments of their work embedded in datasets they never consented to join.


Close-up of a person in a red and black spider-themed suit against a dark background, showing a spider emblem on the chest.
Photo by Hector Reyes on Unsplash

The arguments were loud, emotional and often messy. Creators warned that their intellectual property was being harvested without permission. AI companies insisted that training data fell within legal grey areas. Lawsuits were filed. Statements were issued. Panels were held.


But systemic change moved slowly.


Then Spider-Man appeared.


Not in a cinema release or on a Disney+ platform, but inside a viral AI-generated video created using ByteDance’s Seedance 2.0. Within days of its release, social feeds were filled with highly realistic clips showing Marvel and Star Wars characters in scenarios that looked convincingly cinematic. Lightsabers clashed. Superheroes fought across recognisable cityscapes.


And this time, the response was immediate.


Disney sent a cease-and-desist letter accusing ByteDance of effectively conducting a “virtual smash-and-grab” of its intellectual property. Other studios followed. Industry bodies demanded the platform halt what they described as infringing activity. Even the Japanese government opened an investigation after AI-generated anime characters began circulating online.


ByteDance quickly pledged to strengthen safeguards.


The speed of that reaction stands in sharp contrast to the drawn-out battles fought by independent creatives over the last several years. And that contrast raises a difficult but necessary question: why does meaningful pressure seem to materialise only when billion-dollar franchises are involved?



The Uneven Battlefield of Copyright and AI

The legal tension around generative AI has always centred on training data. Most AI systems are built on enormous datasets scraped from publicly available material. Whether that constitutes fair use or copyright infringement remains one of the most contested questions in modern technology law.


When the alleged victims were individual artists or mid-tier studios, the debate felt theoretical. There were court filings and opinion pieces, but not immediate operational shifts from the tech giants.


Now the optics are different.


Seedance is not accused of vaguely echoing an artistic style. It is accused of generating recognisable characters owned by one of the most powerful entertainment companies in the world. Spider-Man is not an aesthetic. He is a legally fortified intellectual property asset supported by decades of licensing agreements, contractual protections and global brand enforcement.


That changes the power dynamic instantly.


Where independent creators struggled to compel transparency around training datasets, Disney commands it. Where freelance illustrators waited months for platform responses, multinational studios can demand immediate action.


The issue itself has not changed. The scale of the stakeholder has.


What This Means for AI Video

AI video is still in its infancy compared to image generation, but the implications of this dispute could accelerate its regulation dramatically.


If platforms are found to be generating content too closely resembling copyrighted franchises, expect tighter content controls. Prompt filtering will become more aggressive. Character names will be blocked. Visual similarity detection tools may be deployed to prevent outputs that mirror protected designs.


In short, the open playground phase of AI video may end sooner than expected.


There is also another path emerging: licensing.


Disney’s existing billion-dollar partnership with OpenAI signals a model where AI tools are not eliminated but contained within approved ecosystems. Rather than preventing AI from generating Marvel characters altogether, studios may instead seek to monetise that capability under strict agreements.


That would create a bifurcated future for AI video. Corporate-approved generative systems operating inside licensing frameworks on one side, and heavily restricted public tools on the other.


Independent creators could once again find themselves navigating a more tightly controlled environment shaped by corporate negotiation rather than broad creative consensus.


The Transparency Question

One of the most significant unknowns in this entire situation is training data.

ByteDance has not disclosed what Seedance was trained on. That silence is not unusual in the industry. Most generative AI companies treat training datasets as proprietary assets.

But as legal pressure increases, so too does the demand for transparency. If studios begin demanding to know whether their content was scraped, regulators may soon follow.


For years, artists have asked for opt-in systems, compensation structures and dataset audits. If this moment forces platforms to adopt more transparent practices, it may indirectly validate those earlier demands.


It would be a bitter irony if the turning point for creator protection comes only once global media conglomerates feel threatened.


A Defining Moment for AI and Creativity

There is something symbolic about this dispute.


AI innovation has been framed as disruptive, democratising and unstoppable. Copyright law, by contrast, is territorial, slow-moving and rooted in decades-old legal frameworks. For a time, it appeared that generative AI might simply outpace enforcement.


But intellectual property remains one of the strongest legal shields in modern commerce. When AI tools move from stylistic imitation to recognisable franchise replication, the shield activates quickly.


This is not necessarily an anti-AI moment. It may instead be a recalibration.


The creative economy depends on ownership, licensing and consent. AI systems that ignore those principles are unlikely to survive prolonged legal scrutiny. The question is whether reform will apply evenly across the creative landscape or remain reactive to whoever has the loudest legal voice.


If the Seedance dispute leads to clearer boundaries, transparent datasets and fairer licensing models for all creators, it could mark a maturation phase for AI video.


If it simply results in selective enforcement that protects corporate assets while leaving independent creators in grey areas, the imbalance will persist.


For now, one thing is certain.


AI video has crossed from experimental novelty into serious legal territory.


And it took a superhero to force the conversation into the open.

Current Most Read

AI Video, Copyright, and the Turning Point No One Wanted to Talk About
Measles Is Rising Again: What Is Happening in London and Around the World
The UK’s new deepfake laws: what is now illegal, what it means in practice, and what could come next

Rugby lad culture needs to stop

  • Writer: Gregory Devine
    Gregory Devine
  • Oct 9, 2024
  • 3 min read
My adventure at university is continuing and, whilst it’s full on, with many lectures and extra work, I’m loving it.
Rugby lads at university

My adventure at university is continuing and, whilst it’s full on, with many lectures and extra work, I’m loving it.


Going to university means meeting new people I wouldn’t necessarily encounter. Coming from a working-class town in Yorkshire, the ‘posh rugby lad’, with Rugby lad culture, is a type I’ve not met until now—I wish I never had.


Arrogant, entitled, privileged young men, unfortunately, ruin the experience of university somewhat. It’s not every posh boy, but it does seem that the majority carry a disdain for working-class people—they don’t even try to hide their disrespectful opinions. They think they’re better than most other university students because Daddy paid their tuition fees.


University lads on a night out

With the greatest of respect, we’re all at the same Russell group university. We all achieved the required grades to get there. Just because I’ve been loaned the tuition fees does not make me any less entitled to a place on my course. Luckily, because I’ve chosen to study computer science, the rugby lads aren’t constantly around me. Had I been on an engineering or economics course, however, my lecture theatre would’ve been full of Schöffel jackets, signet rings and mullets.


Is this a generalisation? Yes. But generalisations are usually correct!


This isn’t a depiction of every ‘rugby lad’, of course. I’ve met some rugby players who are genuine, kind, respectful people—but I do feel they’re in the minority. The consequence of the ‘posh boy’ culture means that some freshers, who would’ve liked to have played rugby at university, have become disengaged; they’ve looked elsewhere for something to do in their downtime. Some have turned to American Football, which appears to perpetuate a positive culture that allows for fun and banter whilst still remaining respectful. In other words: normalcy.

University American Football

The disrespect these posh rugby lads give women is of particular concern to me. Whilst it isn’t obvious at first, should you find yourself in a pub with a group of them, watch how they treat girls. Whilst their behaviour isn’t abusive, they appear to project a sense of ownership. They often throw their arms around females’ necks, in what I consider an almost aggressive manner, in order to assert their dominance. What infuriates me is how those around them accept their actions. The women they mix with don’t seem to have an issue with it— probably because they’re used to it—but when a rugby lad tries to do the same with a girl from a working-class background, she, quite rightly, reprimands their pathetic behaviour.


I’m not alone in my opinion. As I write, I’m surrounded by my flatmates who are working hard on their many different courses; they all agree that most rugby lads are disrespectful, or at the very least, irritating. Alcohol is definitely a factor in determining the level of respect these young men are able to show. Whilst sober, they can appear normal, and I can actually enjoy having a conversation with them. When drunk, however, their Dutch courage is far too high, and their sense of entitlement becomes intolerable. It’s a shame, as I really enjoy watching rugby, but as soon as a drop of booze hits these guys’ bloodstreams, I don’t want to be in their company, as they simply resort to disrespecting or belittling anyone who’s not one of them.


I’ll conclude by again reiterating that there are exceptions to every rule. Whilst ‘posh rugby lads’ are not my favourite type of person, that doesn’t make them awful human beings. It’s just a case of different upbringings—and this is why university is so good. It brings people together from all walks of life.


Learning how to accommodate and appreciate others is one of the greatest lessons available at university…it’s just not on the curriculum.

bottom of page