Motion Picture Association Strikes Deal with ByteDance for IP Protections in AI Video, Image Models

Steelman: both sides, in good faith

The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.

The case for

Advocates of this kind of agreement, including studios, rights holders and performers' representatives, argue that generative tools able to conjure a named actor's face and voice on demand pose a genuine threat to consent, livelihood and brand integrity, and that Seedance 2.0's unauthorised use of figures such as Brad Pitt and Tom Cruise showed the risk was not hypothetical. From this vantage, negotiated safeguards built directly into the software are a faster, more practical route to protection than waiting years for legislation or litigation, and cooperation signals that a major platform is willing to take copyright and likeness rights seriously rather than treat infringement as an acceptable cost of growth. Extending this model industry-wide, they would argue, offers creators a measure of control over how their work and image are used in an era of rapidly advancing AI.

The case against

Sceptics of relying on this kind of memorandum, including some technologists, digital rights advocates and even performers' unions pushing for stronger guarantees, would note that a voluntary, non-binding MOU carries no independent enforcement mechanism, no disclosed compensation structure for artists whose likenesses were already used without permission, and can be altered or abandoned unilaterally by either party. They would also raise a broader concern that agreements struck privately between a handful of major studios and a dominant platform risk entrenching the interests of large incumbents on both sides, potentially setting restrictive norms around parody, commentary and transformative use that go beyond what copyright law actually requires, while leaving smaller creators and independent AI developers with less say in shaping the rules.