Google is courting Hollywood studios for AI character and franchise licences
Approaches to Disney, Universal and Warner Bros. Discovery test whether negotiated access to known characters is possible. No agreements have been confirmed.
Google has approached Disney, Universal and Warner Bros. Discovery about licensing entertainment intellectual property for its AI tools, according to the Los Angeles Times. No agreements have been confirmed.
The approach is notable mainly because the industry's default has been to train first and defend later. Negotiating for character rights in advance is a different posture, and it is being taken at a moment when the legal ground is shifting in the labs' favour rather than against them.
Why now, when the litigation is going well
The US Justice Department filed a statement on 2 September supporting OpenAI and Microsoft's argument that training on copyrighted material is fair use, timed ahead of summary judgment in the New York Times case. The Seattle Times and Newsday sued three days later. Authors are contesting how Anthropic's copyright settlement is divided.
So the legal environment for training has just improved. Google is negotiating anyway, and the reason is that character licensing is a different question from training.
Training on a corpus that includes a studio's films is the fair use argument. Generating Mickey Mouse on request is trademark, and trademark does not have a fair use defence of the same shape. A model that will produce a recognisable protected character on demand is a problem for its operator regardless of how the model was trained.
That distinction is why the approach makes commercial sense: Google wants to offer the capability, and the capability requires permission that no court is going to grant.
What the studios are weighing
A studio's position is genuinely difficult. Licensing characters into a generative system means losing control over depiction in a way no previous licence has involved — a character can be placed in any context by any user, and the brand damage from a bad output accrues to the studio.
Against that, refusing does not prevent it. Models already generate approximations of famous characters, and abliteration.ai is now selling guardrail removal as a service on open-weight models. The studios' choice is between a licensed channel with contractual controls and an unlicensed one with none.
Disney has historically chosen enforcement over licensing in every analogous fight. It is also the studio with the most to gain from a rate-setting deal, because whatever price is agreed first becomes the market price.
The wider consumer play
Google is assembling entertainment distribution for its models more broadly. It signed a multiyear deal with MrBeast, the largest creator on YouTube, integrating Gemini demonstrations into wilderness content alongside Fitbit and Google Health — treating model capability as entertainment rather than advertising.
That is a consumer strategy running in parallel with an enterprise one that is struggling. Ramp data cited by TechCrunch put Google at roughly 6 percent of US enterprise AI spending against Anthropic's 43.5 percent, though Google notes it excludes large strategic deals, and the Accenture joint unit announced this month is the attempt to close it.
Generative video makes the licensing question more urgent. OpenVDN reported denoising 14.4 seconds of video in 11.23 seconds on eight B200s — generation faster than playback. A tool that produces licensed characters in real time is a product; one that produces them without a licence is a lawsuit.
None of the studios has commented.
Runs the newsroom. Rename this profile in the studio to your own byline.
Related
Every weekday, the AI stories that moved money or shipped code.
No cross-posting, unsubscribe anytime. See all newsletters