By striking a formal licensing deal for its IP, Disney gives a powerful counterargument against OpenAI's potential "fair use" claims for other copyrighted material. This willingness to pay for some characters while scraping others could be used as evidence in future lawsuits from creators.
Related Insights
There is emerging evidence of a "pay-to-play" dynamic in AI search. Platforms like ChatGPT seem to disproportionately cite content from sources with which they have commercial deals, such as the Financial Times and Reddit. This suggests paid partnerships can heavily influence visibility in AI-generated results.
Actors like Bryan Cranston challenging unauthorized AI use of their likeness are forcing companies like OpenAI to create stricter rules. These high-profile cases are establishing the foundational framework that will ultimately define and protect the digital rights of all individuals, not just celebrities.
OpenAI launched Sora 2 knowing it would generate copyrighted content to achieve viral growth and app store dominance, planning to implement controls only after securing market position and forcing rights holders to negotiate.
Unlike Google Search, which drove traffic, AI tools like Perplexity summarize content directly, destroying publisher business models. This forces companies like the New York Times to take a hardline stance and demand direct, substantial licensing fees. Perplexity's actions are thus accelerating the shift to a content licensing model for all AI companies.
Disney is licensing its IP to OpenAI, avoiding the "Napster trap" where music labels sued file-sharing services into bankruptcy but lost control of the streaming market. By partnering, Disney shapes the use of its IP in AI and benefits financially, rather than fighting a losing legal battle against technology's advance.
