Disney-OpenAI Deal Impact on the Creator Economy: Usage Rights & AI Training
Disney’s offer to OpenAi just demonstrated that three little distinctions are worth billions. If you’re a creator, make sure your next contract reflects that value.
1. The Likeness Firewall
Your first non‑negotiable: separate who you are from what you make.
Disney’s agreement with OpenAI to bring 200+ Disney, Marvel, Pixar, and Star Wars characters into the Sora video app explicitly excludes talent likenesses and voices. This validates what Diverge Legal has long advised: your face and voice are separate intellectual property from the characters you perform or content you create.
Reports of the deal, and union commentary from SAG‑AFTRA, confirm that Disney drew a hard line: OpenAI can generate scenes with the characters, but not photorealistic replicas or voice clones of the actors who play them. If Disney is carving this out at nine‑figure scale, then content creator should not be giving it away for free in a standard brand deal contract.
In Canada, recent ACTRA/CMPA agreements already require informed consent and separate compensation for digital replicas and AI‑generated performances, but those protections don’t automatically extend to non‑union influencers, podcasters, streamers, or UGC creators.
Since Canada is still lacking a federal “right of publicity” or unified digital likeness protections that other jurisdictions benefit from, independent creators must negotiate likeness protections into every 2026 contract. While entertainment contracts have separated actor likenesses from character IP for decades, the Disney deal proves this principle now extends to AI-generated synthetics. However, you cannot assume a brand or platform will respect this rights distinction without explicit contract language.
Practical tip:
Make “likeness rights” its own clause.
Define “likeness” broadly (face, voice, avatar, biometric data, distinctive performance style).
State clearly that no AI, synthetic, or digital replica use is permitted without fresh written consent and separate payment.
Never allow a generic “we can use your image and voice in all media now known or later developed” without an AI carve‑out.
2. Authorized vs. Unauthorized Use
Your second non‑negotiable: decide whether your content lives on the authorized or unauthorized side of the AI line.
We are moving rapidly toward an explicitly divided internet: authorized AI use and unauthorized AI use.
Within 24 hours, Disney did two things:
December 10, 2025: Sent a cease‑and‑desist to Google demanding it stop using Disney characters in AI outputs in tools like Veo and Imagen, calling that use unauthorized and infringing.
December 11, 2025: Announced a three‑year, US$1 billion equity‑plus‑licensing partnership with OpenAI to bring those same character universes into Sora in a controlled, licensed way.
That’s the new split:
Authorized AI use: Clearly licensed, paid for, contractually constrained.
Unauthorized AI use: Challenged, litigated, and increasingly difficult to defend under “fair use.”
The licensing market confirms this split. As of mid-2025, 83+ documented commercial licensing agreements exist between creators and AI companies (up from near-zero 18 months ago). Simultaneously, 60% of major news sites now actively block AI crawlers, signalling explicit permission/denial rather than ambiguous scraping.
If your content is not authorized for AI use via explicit license, it faces increasing litigation risk and regulatory exposure. Courts are no longer treating unlicensed AI training as a settled fair use question. The Thomson Reuters v. Ross Intelligence ruling (February 2025) confirmed that training on copyrighted work is not fair use when it competes with the original. The U.S. Copyright Office (May 2025) stated that licensing is now the expected framework when available.
You cannot assume AI companies will ask permission. Disney's lawsuit against Google proves they will actively challenge unauthorized use. You must demand authorization contractually, in writing, with defined scope.
Practical tip:
When you see language such as “internal use,” “product improvement,” “research,” or “AI tools,” you should:
Assume this includes potential AI training or synthetic use unless it is clearly excluded.
Add a sentence that says your content cannot be used to train, fine‑tune, or improve AI models without separate written permission and a specific fee or royalty.
Require the client to confirm, in writing, whether they are using or planning to use any AI systems in connection with your content, so you can decide whether to license into that or opt out.
Key takeaway: If AI use isn’t explicitly authorized in your favour, treat it as a risk, not a bonus.
3. A New Compensation Bucket: Generative Revenue
Your third non‑negotiable: separate what you’re paid for views from what you’re paid for AI.
There’s a good chance that your current creator contracts bundle all content rights under one, overarching usage fee. If you haven’t negotiated exclusions, constraints, or restrictions on how a brand or platform can use your content, then you’ve likely granted unlimited usage rights that would permit the brand or platform to license your content for AI training or generative use. The value of that right is absorbed into the traditional flat rate usage fee, meaning don’t get additional compensation for this.
Disney's deal with OpenAI establishes something critical: AI licensing has distinct market value, separate from traditional content compensation structures. It operates on completely different metrics based on authorized creation and training, not views. AI training licences are increasingly quoted on a per‑asset or per‑minute basis and can be worth far more over the same period, especially when they unlock a feature or product category.
To protect your value in 2026, creator contracts need to explicitly distinguish between:
Traditional model for entertainment and creator deals usually pay you based on:
A flat fee (per post, per campaign, per episode), and/or
Residuals or ongoing fees tied to views, broadcasts, or streams.
New Generative AI model:
AI systems use your work as training data (to improve the model), and/or
As generation ingredients (e.g., your style, your character, your likeness in new outputs).
Disney recognized that this revenue stream requires separate negotiation, separate tracking, and separate compensation structures from traditional licensing. This isn't character licensing—this is training data and generative content licensing. If a brand later licenses your content to an AI platform, that should trigger a renegotiation or separate compensation event, not be absorbed into a flat fee signed years earlier.
For creators, the risk is that all of this gets folded into one vague grant of rights or license and a single fee, without specifying generative use is excluded or separately compensated. The result is that:
Your content being used to train AI models without additional payment
Your likeness or performance style being synthesized for new content without additional payment
New revenue categories being created around your content with zero compensation to you
Practical tip:
If a brand wants broad rights “in all media and technologies now known or later devised” without addressing AI as its own category, the safest move for a creator is to:
Add an explicit AI exclusion (“other than AI training or generative use, which requires separate written agreement”), or
Add clear AI pricing, reporting terms, and renegotiation clauses if the brand licenses to third-party AI platforms so you are not giving away a future revenue stream for free.
3 Step Checklist for Your Next Brand Deal
These three dynamics: (1) likeness separation, (2) authorized vs. unauthorized licensing, and (3) separate generative compensation, will define the new creator economy contract landscape in 2026. When you open a draft contract in 2026, ask three questions before you think about rate cards or aesthetics:
Does this contract clearly protect my likeness and voice as separate IP?
If not, add a “likeness firewall” clause and refuse any generic rights that let the brand clone you.Does this contract clearly say what AI uses are authorized (and what are not)?
If not, add language that blocks AI training and generative use unless you separately agree and get paid for it.Does this contract separate AI‑related compensation from traditional compensation?
If not, insist on a distinct line item (or section) for AI / generative use, with its own fees, royalties, or bonus structure.
Disney’s latest moves show that the market now sees these three distinctions as billion‑dollar issues. Your contracts don’t need to be complex to reflect that, but they do need to be clear.
Your creative work is your leverage.
In this rapidly changing digital era, your standard contract is obsolete before the ink dries. For a review of your specific contracts or negotiation of AI-related protections, contact Diverge Legal.
Need help understanding the intricate contracts that govern your creative work, or want to build a strategy for IP protection? Diverge Legal is here to help.
If you’re ready for representation that understands the difference between a data point and your dream, contact Diverge today.
Read these next
More about DIVERGE
Diverge is not just a legal service provider. We’re your partner in building a legally sound and sustainable content creation business. We understand the unique challenges creators face and offer tailored solutions to protect your intellectual property, ensure regulatory compliance, and minimize legal risks.
Whether you’re an established influencer or an emerging creator, Diverge is here to help you focus on what you do best, while we take care of the legal complexities.
Reach out to Diverge today to learn more about how we can support your content creation journey.
Follow @diverge.legal on social media or subscribe to our newsletter below for more tips on protecting your creative rights and thriving in the creator economy.
Important Notice: The information in this article is provided for general informational purposes only and is not intended as legal advice. Reading this content does not create a lawyer-client relationship. Always seek professional legal counsel tailored to your specific situation. No part of this article may be reproduced or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, or stored in any retrieval system of any nature, without the express written permission of Diverge Legal.
