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 Streaming Divide: Why Pop Superstars Earn Millions While Most Musicians Struggle to Survive

Paul Francis
Nov 11, 2025
4 min read

For millions of music fans, every song is just a click away. Streaming platforms such as Spotify, Apple Music and their competitors now generate billions of dollars in annual payouts. Yet for many artists, the income is barely enough to live on. Meanwhile, a small group of global superstars enjoy platform-shattering success and headline tours that gross tens of millions.

Grid of colorful squares displaying music genres like Chill, Jazz, Latin, R&B. Each square features album art and genre text.

What is driving this gap? And how does it affect the new generation of musicians trying to build careers from their craft?

The Vast Payouts, But Not for Everyone

In 2024, Spotify revealed that it had paid out more than US$10 billion in royalties to the music industry. On the surface, this appears to be a thriving ecosystem. However, the distribution of that money tells a very different story.

According to independent data, artists who own their masters earned an average of US$3.41 per 1,000 streams globally in 2024, down from around US$4.04 in 2021. That is equal to about US $0.0034 per stream. If an artist earns 100,000 streams in a month, they might make only US$340.

Streaming services typically use what is called a pro-rata payment model. Revenue is pooled together and divided according to each artist’s percentage of total streams. In practice, this benefits major artists with the biggest catalogues, label backing and playlist exposure. Smaller acts receive only a fraction.

The Top Three Per Cent Take the Prize

The upper tier of the music world is thriving. Large-scale artists, major labels and streaming megastars command huge global audiences and, as a result, absorb the majority of the payouts. Spotify’s disclosures show that only a very small number of artists earn six-figure sums, and even fewer reach seven or eight figures.

These artists also benefit from multiple income streams, including live tours, merchandise, brand sponsorships and sync licensing. For them, streaming is only one part of a much larger financial picture.

In contrast, mid-tier and independent artists face an entirely different reality: low streaming income, high touring costs and fierce competition for attention.

Touring: The Lost Income Stream

Touring has long been the lifeblood of working musicians. It provides not only income but also exposure and connection with fans. Yet the economics of touring have changed dramatically.

Shirley Manson from Garbage sings passionately into a microphone on stage, wearing sunglasses and a black sleeveless top. Bright stage lights in the background. — Image by Concerttour, via Wikimedia Commons

Frontwoman Shirley Manson of the band Garbage has been one of the most vocal critics of the modern music economy. During the band’s 2025 North American tour, she stated that Garbage would no longer attempt full-scale headline tours in the region because the costs had become impossible to sustain for “a band like us with a 30-year career.”

She pointed out that the average musician makes about US$12 a month from streaming. Rising fuel costs, staff wages, travel expenses, insurance and venue fees make touring a financial risk even for acts with decades of experience.

If an established band like Garbage cannot justify a tour, the situation for emerging artists is even more difficult.

Why It Is So Hard for New Artists

1. Algorithms and Exposure

Streaming platforms depend heavily on algorithmic curation and official playlists. These are dominated by major-label artists and global hits. For newcomers, breaking into these lists is extremely difficult without marketing support or label funding.

2. Low Payouts Per Stream

With an average of only a few thousandths of a dollar per play, musicians need millions of streams to earn a modest income. Many independent acts never reach those numbers, particularly if they are working in niche genres.

3. Touring Costs

Live performances require significant investment: travel, crew, accommodation, equipment, promotion and management. When streaming revenue cannot cover those costs, artists often face a choice between going into debt or not performing at all.

4. Limited Alternative Income

Other income streams, such as merchandise, fan subscriptions and brand partnerships, require upfront investment and constant marketing. The modern artist must act as a full-time entrepreneur, not just a creator.

5. Lack of Collective Representation

The power in the industry still rests with major labels, streaming platforms and live promoters. Musicians have little collective bargaining power. Shirley Manson has said, “There’s no effective union for musicians that fights for young musicians,” highlighting how vulnerable creators are in the system.

Reforms That Could Help

Many artists and advocates are calling for reforms to make the industry fairer:

User-centric payment models: Each listener’s subscription fee would be divided only among the artists they actually play, instead of being pooled across the entire platform.
Transparent royalties: Artists are demanding clear information on how streaming payouts are calculated and divided.
Touring support: Some suggest public or private funding to help mid-tier artists continue performing live.
Union representation: A stronger collective voice could help secure fairer contracts and protect creative rights.
Diverse income sources: Encouraging direct fan funding, independent distribution, live streaming, and non-traditional deals can help artists stay independent.

The Reality of the Numbers

To put it in perspective: at US $3.41 per 1,000 streams, an artist would need nearly 300,000 monthly plays to make US $1,000. This does not include taxes, label cuts or management fees.

Meanwhile, top artists such as Taylor Swift, Drake and Ed Sheeran receive hundreds of millions of plays per month and can negotiate higher royalty splits through their labels. The gap between these global names and working musicians continues to widen every year.

The Future of Music

The digital era has made it easier than ever to release songs, but far harder to make a living from them. For many, the dream of a sustainable music career now feels out of reach.

As Shirley Manson warned, when only the most commercial voices can afford to continue, “you’ll lose generations of esoteric, creative weirdos.” The danger is not only economic but cultural. A world without risk-taking, diverse music is one that loses its heartbeat.

If the industry wants to stay vibrant, it must find a way to support artists beyond the top three per cent. Because innovation, authenticity and emotional connection often come from the middle — not the mainstream.