The rollout of ByteDance’s new AI video generation platform, Seedance 2.0, has quickly attracted the attention of intellectual property lawyers – and a cease-and-desist letter from Disney. The entertainment giant alleges the platform is stocked with unauthorized copies of its copyrighted characters, effectively treating decades of valuable intellectual property as “free public domain clip art.”
The dispute, first reported by Axios and detailed in a letter reviewed by multiple outlets, highlights a growing tension between the rapid advancement of generative AI and the established legal frameworks protecting creative works. Disney’s counsel, David Singer of Jenner & Block LLC, wrote that ByteDance’s actions are “willful, pervasive, and totally unacceptable.” The letter specifically names characters from Disney’s major franchises – Star Wars, Marvel, and others – including Baby Yoda, Peter Griffin, Spider-Man, and Darth Vader.
Seedance 2.0, launched this week, allows users to create short videos based on text prompts. Early demonstrations of the platform quickly went viral, showcasing the ability to generate remarkably realistic scenes featuring recognizable characters and settings. However, this capability relies on a vast dataset of images and videos used to train the AI model, raising questions about the legality of using copyrighted material without permission. The platform’s versatility has been demonstrated through the creation of fake advertisements and reimagined scenes from popular films, like inserting different actors into the John Wick universe.
This isn’t an isolated incident. The use of copyrighted material in AI training datasets has become a major point of contention across the industry. OpenAI’s ChatGPT faced lawsuits from the New York Times and others over the use of copyrighted text. Image generation platforms like Stability AI have also been targeted by legal challenges from image copyright holders, though with limited success in the UK courts. Even OpenAI’s Sora, a competitor to Seedance 2.0, prompted a request from the Japanese government to refrain from infringing on anime and manga copyrights.
Disney’s response is particularly noteworthy because of a recent content partnership with OpenAI. , OpenAI plans to integrate Disney characters into its Sora platform, allowing users to generate videos featuring characters from Disney, Marvel, Pixar, and Star Wars. This agreement suggests Disney recognizes the potential of AI-generated content but insists on maintaining control over its intellectual property and benefiting financially from its use. According to OpenAI, the deal will allow fans to create “short, user-prompted social videos” using a curated set of Disney characters.
The situation with ByteDance appears different. Disney alleges Seedance 2.0 is not operating under a similar licensing agreement and is instead exploiting its characters without authorization. The letter claims ByteDance is “hijacking” Disney’s characters by reproducing, distributing, and creating derivative works.
Other companies are navigating this complex landscape through licensing agreements. Universal Music Group recently settled a copyright dispute with Udio, an AI music generator, and subsequently formed a partnership to create a licensed music-generation platform. Warner Music Group followed suit shortly after. These deals suggest a potential path forward: AI companies can gain access to copyrighted material by negotiating licensing agreements with rights holders, ensuring that creators are compensated for the use of their work.
Disney’s actions suggest a willingness to pursue legal action to protect its intellectual property, but also hint at a broader strategy. The company’s partnership with OpenAI demonstrates an openness to collaborating with AI developers – but only on terms that are favorable to Disney. The current dispute with ByteDance may be a signal that Disney intends to enforce its copyright vigorously and will not tolerate unauthorized use of its characters, even in the rapidly evolving world of generative AI. The core message appears to be that while AI-driven content creation is inevitable, copyright holders expect to be compensated for the use of their intellectual property, and are prepared to defend their rights.
It remains to be seen how ByteDance will respond to Disney’s cease-and-desist letter. The company could attempt to negotiate a licensing agreement, modify Seedance 2.0 to remove Disney characters, or challenge the legal basis of Disney’s claims. Regardless of the outcome, the dispute is likely to have a significant impact on the development of generative AI and the ongoing debate over copyright law in the digital age.
