DIVERGE
DIGITIAL
Where law meets innovation.
OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF DIVERGE LEGAL
the blog
The $108B Standoff: Why Warner Bros. Picked Netflix Over Paramount (Part III)
Warner Bros. Discovery has told shareholders to reject Paramount Skydance’s USD 108.4B hostile takeover and stick with its binding Netflix deal. This Part 3 update breaks down the board’s reasoning, the brewing fiduciary‑duty and antitrust fights, and the practical contract moves creators should make as Netflix, WBD, and Paramount battle for control of Hollywood’s most valuable IP.
Beyond the $1 Billion Headline: How Disney Turned Its IP into an AI Equity Play
OpenAI is not paying Disney in cash for those character rights. Instead, Disney is being compensated entirely in stock warrants—options to buy more equity in OpenAI at today’s valuation—on top of its already announced $1 billion equity investment. This isn’t just a licensing deal. It is a bet that generative AI will be so valuable that trading immediate IP revenue for upside in the AI company itself is worth the risk. For creators, this shift has profound implications.
Disney-OpenAI Deal Impact on the Creator Economy: Usage Rights & AI Training
Disney’s latest moves with OpenAI and Google didn’t just shake up Hollywood—they quietly reset the baseline for what creators should be asking for in every contract in 2026. This article is your quick 3-step reference guide (with practical tips) that you can keep beside you when you mark up a deal, or share with your clients to help them negotiate fair deals. Bonus: check out the 3 Step Checklist for Your Next Brand Deal at the end!
Disney–OpenAI: What the $1B Licensing Deal Means for Creator IP
Disney and OpenAI announced a three-year, $1 billion licensing deal that fundamentally redefines how IP holders negotiate with AI platforms. Starting in early 2026, the Sora video generation platform will host over 200 iconic characters from the Disney, Marvel, Pixar, and Star Wars universes—allowing users to create sanctioned AI-generated content.
Hostile Takeover: The $108 Billion War for Warner Bros. (Part II)
The $82.7 billion Netflix-WBD deal is no longer a definitive agreement. Paramount Skydance has launched a hostile tender offer for the entire company at $30.00 per share in all-cash, dramatically escalating the auction to an enterprise value of $108.4 billion. This aggressive maneuver immediately places the WBD Board in a fiduciary trap. Under M&A principles (such as the Revlon standard), the Board's duty shifts to maximizing shareholder value, forcing them to justify why the lower, stock-component Netflix offer is superior to a higher, all-cash bid. The decision hinges not only on price but on opposing antitrust...
The $82.7 Billion Question – Should the Netflix-Warner Bros. Deal Be Blocked? (Part I)
The Netflix acquisition of Warner Bros.'s film and TV studios, including HBO and HBO Max, for an estimated $82.7 billion is not merely a corporate transaction; it's a structural shift that concentrates unprecedented power and IP under one roof. This deal eliminates a major buyer for new content, leading to market consolidation that directly impacts every creator's ability to negotiate favourable terms, compensation, and ownership. The size of this transaction immediately triggered intense scrutiny under anti-trust and competition law globally, with major…
Sneak & Desist: A Toronto Trademark Battle Every Business & Brand Should Understand
You might’ve heard by now that Sneaky Dee’s, in an attempt to rally fans and promote its World Series watch party, used the official Blue Jays logo and images of players in its social media posts.
Who Owns Your Content? A Creator's Guide to Copyright on Brand Deals
You’ve just wrapped a fantastic shoot for a brand. You brought your unique characters, your creative vision, and your audience to the table, creating compelling content to promote their event. The brand loves the final product, but when the contract discussion turns to ownership, you hit a wall. The brand insists they own the content outright because…
Eminem vs. Meta Lawsuit: Protecting Your Creative Work in the Digital Age (Part II)
The Eminem vs. Meta lawsuit reignites the debate surrounding platform accountability for copyrighted content. This case appears to allege direct infringement by Meta's own features and a failure to address prior complaints.
Eminem vs. Meta Lawsuit: Understanding Music Copyright in the Digital Age (Part I)
Eminem's music publishing company has filed a significant lawsuit against Meta Platforms Inc., seeking over $100 million in damages. This isn't just another celebrity headline; it's a major legal dispute that highlights critical questions about intellectual property rights, and digital licensing.
Why You Must Own Your Work: 8 Legal Lessons for Creators
Inspired by Taylor Swift… Find out what Taylor’s journey can teach you about protecting your artistic and financial future…
The Taylor Swift Story: A Masterclass in Intellectual Property
Learn how Taylor Swift's fight for her music masters offers vital lessons in intellectual property, M&A, and contract law. The music industry, a vibrant tapestry of artistic expression and commercial enterprise, often becomes a battleground for ownership and control. Few sagas illustrate this struggle as vividly and publicly as that of Taylor Swift...
Disclaimer
Diverge Legal by Kicz Legal Professional Corporation (“Diverge Legal” or the “Company”) takes reasonable care to make sure that the information on Diverge Digital (the “blog”) is complete at the time it was posted. However, the information may not be comprehensive or current and is provided for general information purposes only and should not be relied upon for legal advice. You should consult a qualified lawyer on any specific legal question or matter.
Diverge Legal is not responsible and all liability is excluded for any damage or loss due to any reliance upon the information on this blog. Use of the information on this blog is at your own risk.
Links from this blog are provided for convenience, and do not suggest an affiliation with or endorsement by the author or the Company. Diverge Legal is not responsible for the content of external sites that link to this blog or that are linked from this blog.
This blog is for informational purposes only. The content is not legal advice and no lawyer-client relationship is created by accessing or otherwise using this blog or by communicating with the author by email or through this blog. Neither the Company nor the author of the blog guarantee the confidentiality of any communication via email or through this blog.