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

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

The Decline of Patriotism Among Young Adults and the Prospects of Conscription

Paul Francis
Feb 13, 2024
3 min read

Why Young People Don’t Want to Fight for the Country?

Tensions around the world seem to be at their highest in my lifetime. Yes, there was still conflict when I was younger such as in Iraq, but there wasn’t the same fear of war on a global scale. All this unrest, and our country's apparent lack of manpower within its military, has led to rumours of a possible return to national service.

Youth Perspective on National Service

Do I think conscription making a return would be a good thing? I’m quite torn in truth. For the country, a return would make complete sense. If our military doesn’t have enough men to defend itself then we have a serious problem. A return of conscription would most likely involve myself directly and this is where I start to see issues. As a 22-year-old I’m arguably in prime fitness with regards to age so would likely receive a call-up but we are in modern times and choice is a right many of us are familiar with. Lots of people my age feel no real pride in our country. In truth, what reason does a young person have to be patriotic to the country? We’ve had zero help from our government, there’s little potential in our economy right now and many of us will never be able to afford to own a house. When the country gives little to us, why should we give back to it?

Line of British World War 1 solders — Photo by Museums Victoria on Unsplash

The counterargument is I believe that if national service was already a thing I probably would have more love towards my country. If I was 22 in the 1950s I would have already served in the armed forces for 18 months. I believe had I done this I would be a lot more patriotic to my country, especially having served alongside other people your age which would build a sense of camaraderie. There are plenty of countries around the world that still have mandatory service. Most Scandinavian countries still require it as do Austria and Switzerland so it's not like conscription is an outdated concept, more just one that is out of favour in most places.

A Lasting Source of Allegiance

It's not like love for our country is completely absent within young people, it's just not maybe directly for the country. Take sport for example, when England is playing in football tournaments there is plenty of support for the country. We all don our shirts, sing the national anthem, and paint our faces with the flag of St. George but after the tournament, that sense of patriotism dies down pretty quickly. Outside of sport, there isn’t anything to be prideful of. We are a very divided country. That divide is everywhere to see, politically things are very conflicted right now. Economically the divide between rich and poor is massive. There’s even the North-South divide within our country that divides it even further. With all this division is it a surprise that we have a lack of people wanting to fight for the country?

Addressing the Challenge Ahead

Ultimately if war did develop close to home I do believe people would fight but I also believe many would refuse to. The only real love everybody has is for their family. There isn’t even a local community spirit never mind that on a national scale. Despite this, I want to make it clear I have nothing but the highest respect for anybody who has served our country. Our troops are something we can be proud of. Our Special Forces are the best in the world bar none and that is something we can be extremely proud of. We just don’t champion them as much as other countries like the United States. Over in the States, the Star Spangled Banner is everywhere. The national anthem is sung before every sporting event. Here in the UK unless a national team is playing or it's a Cup Final you simply won’t hear the anthem. The BBC used to play the anthem at the end of the day after programming had ended but since most BBC channels run around the clock this doesn’t happen anymore.

It's a real issue the country faces, there’s a lack of pride in our country and thus, at least in my opinion, a lack of people who want to serve the country. It's just another issue on a growing list the next government needs to address.