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

What Christmas 2025 Revealed About the Future of Consoles

Paul Francis
Jan 6
4 min read

For decades, Christmas has acted as the clearest indicator of the health of the console games industry. Strong festive sales usually signalled momentum, cultural relevance, and a growing audience. Weak performance, by contrast, often hinted at bigger structural change.

Nintendo Switch with Pokémon game on screen, surrounded by Pokémon figures and a controller. Bright colors, playful gaming setup.

Christmas 2025 did not deliver the dramatic uplift many expected. While consoles continued to sell, the overall picture suggested a market that is no longer driven by festive urgency in the way it once was. Instead, the numbers revealed a shift in how people value, buy, and use gaming hardware.

A festive season that felt quieter than expected

In the UK, PlayStation 5 remained the strongest performing console over the Christmas period. During Black Friday and the weeks leading up to Christmas, it accounted for the majority of console sales, reinforcing Sony’s position as the dominant platform of the current generation.

However, overall console sales were lower than historic norms. Xbox hardware experienced its weakest year on record in the UK, with sales down significantly compared to the previous year. This decline was not isolated. In the United States, November 2025 saw some of the lowest holiday-period console sales figures in decades, suggesting a broader slowdown rather than a local anomaly.

Nintendo’s Switch 2 offered a partial counterpoint. Its launch earlier in 2025 was strong, and it quickly built a substantial installed base. Even so, its success did not translate into a wider surge for the console market as a whole.

Rather than a dramatic collapse, Christmas 2025 felt subdued. It reflected a market that is stable, but no longer expanding through seasonal spikes.

Retro Nintendo Entertainment System on a gray table, with visible power and reset buttons. Vintage, nostalgic atmosphere.

Why Christmas no longer guarantees a sales boost

Several factors explain why Christmas did not deliver the usual surge in hardware sales.

Price remains a significant barrier. Consoles are still expensive several years into the generation, and for many households facing cost-of-living pressures, a games console competes with more practical priorities.

Urgency has also faded. In previous generations, buying a console meant access to exclusive games unavailable elsewhere. Today, that distinction is weaker. Subscription services, cross-platform releases, and cloud gaming have reduced the pressure to buy hardware immediately.

Console lifecycles have lengthened as well. Many players are satisfied with older systems that still run most major releases. The leap to newer hardware often feels incremental rather than essential, especially when digital libraries carry over.

Together, these factors mean that Christmas no longer functions as a forcing moment for upgrades.

Xbox as a case study in strategic change

Xbox’s performance in 2025 highlights how corporate strategy can reshape hardware demand.

Microsoft has increasingly positioned Xbox as a service rather than a device. Game Pass, cloud streaming, and the decision to release titles across multiple platforms have expanded access to its games. At the same time, they have reduced the necessity of owning an Xbox console specifically.

For consumers, this flexibility can be appealing. For hardware sales, it weakens the traditional Christmas proposition. When a console becomes optional rather than essential, fewer people feel compelled to buy one as a gift.

Xbox’s decline does not suggest a failing brand, but it does illustrate how shifting priorities can alter the role of hardware within an ecosystem.

PlayStation’s dominance in a changing market

Two black gaming controllers with blue and red lights are on a wooden table, alongside headphones. The scene is relaxed and tech-focused.

Sony’s position remains strong. PlayStation 5 continues to attract buyers, supported by a steady release schedule and strong brand loyalty. Yet dominance alone does not guarantee growth.

When one platform captures most of the remaining demand, it can indicate consolidation rather than expansion. Fewer people may be buying consoles overall, but those who do are choosing a single, familiar option.

This creates a quieter challenge for the industry. If even the market leader depends on a shrinking pool of buyers, the traditional model of relying on festive sales peaks becomes less reliable over time.

Are consoles becoming a more specialist purchase?

Consoles are not disappearing, but their role appears to be narrowing.

They increasingly function as lifestyle devices purchased by committed players rather than default household gifts. Casual gaming continues to thrive on mobile devices, PCs, and cloud platforms, where barriers to entry are lower.

Younger players in particular are less likely to associate gaming with a single box beneath the television. Their experience is spread across devices, accounts, and subscriptions.

Christmas 2025 may be remembered as the moment when this generational shift became clearly visible in sales data.

What Christmas 2025 means for the future

Future festive seasons will still matter, but they may no longer define success in the way they once did. Console launches and growth strategies are likely to rely more on long-term engagement than on Christmas spikes alone.

Services, digital libraries, and ecosystems may matter more than units sold in December. Hardware could continue to sell steadily rather than explosively, reflecting a mature and fragmented market.

Christmas 2025 did not mark the end of consoles. It marked a transition away from a model built on seasonal urgency.

The story of Christmas 2025 is not one of collapse, but of adjustment.

Consoles remain a core part of the games industry, but they are no longer the automatic centrepiece of Christmas for every household. The quieter tone of this festive season suggests an industry adapting to new habits, new priorities, and a broader definition of how people play.

What once depended on a single day under the tree is now shaped by an entire year of access.