As Big Tech scrambles to control your imagination, Disney just accused Google’s Gemini AI of stealing its crown-jewel characters on a “massive” scale.
Story Snapshot
- Disney issued a cease-and-desist letter to Google, accusing its Gemini AI of copying and generating unlicensed images of Disney’s Star Wars, Marvel, and Pixar characters on a “massive” scale.
- The legal action claims Gemini was trained on Disney’s intellectual property (IP) without permission and distributes derivative works under Google’s branding.
- One day later, Disney announced a $1 billion exclusive licensing partnership with OpenAI’s Sora video generator, underscoring a strategic shift to a pay-to-play AI model.
- The confrontation is expected to influence the legal precedent regarding intellectual property rights and the use of copyrighted material for AI training data.
Disney Targets Google’s Gemini Over “Massive” AI Copying
On December 10, 2025, The Walt Disney Company, through its legal counsel, sent a cease-and-desist letter to Google regarding its Gemini AI product. The letter accuses the generative AI model of producing and distributing unlicensed images and videos based on Disney’s core franchises, including Star Wars, Marvel’s Avengers, Moana, Zootopia, and Pixar’s Inside Out. Disney asserts that Gemini’s output constitutes copyright infringement on a “massive” scale.
Disney argues that when Gemini generates detailed, recognizable character images and brands them with Google’s logo, it misleads users into believing the content is authorized. The core of the complaint is that Google trained its AI on Disney’s material without permission and is now commercially distributing unauthorized derivative works.
Disney sent a cease-and-desist to Google for AI copyright infringement
Worth reminding everyone that Google execs like Paige have been *explicitly* encouraging users to generate Disney outputs … https://t.co/i8ohzqd6vU
— Nate Hake (@natejhake) December 12, 2025
The $1 Billion OpenAI Deal and the New Licensing Model
The dispute with Google gained additional significance when, just one day later, Disney announced a three-year, $1 billion exclusive licensing partnership with OpenAI for its Sora video generator. This deal grants OpenAI the right to generate images and videos using Disney’s copyrighted library under specific terms. The contract reportedly includes crucial limitations, such as the exclusion of actor likenesses or voices, addressing key concerns raised during recent Hollywood labor negotiations.
This strategic move clarifies Disney’s position: it is pursuing a pay-to-play model for the use of its IP by generative AI developers. The action against Google suggests that the media giant is aggressively defending its intellectual property rights against tech companies that rely on a mass-scraping approach for training data.
Previous Lawsuits Set the Stage
Disney’s legal action against Google follows a series of lawsuits filed by major studios (including Disney, Universal, and Warner Bros.) against other generative AI companies, such as Midjourney and Minimax. These earlier cases focused on the argument that the AI services enabled users to directly reproduce copyrighted characters and visuals, constituting secondary infringement.
The legal front is expanding, especially with the introduction of advanced video generation capabilities like those in Gemini. The ability to generate entire scenes featuring protected characters threatens future revenue streams derived from sequels, merchandising, and spin-offs, raising the stakes for the entire creative industry.
Union Support and the Debate Over Likenesses
The performers’ union SAG-AFTRA publicly supported Disney’s action against Google, framing it as part of the broader effort to control the use of human likenesses in unlicensed AI systems. The union has previously warned that unregulated AI poses a risk to working performers by creating “digital doubles” that can be reused perpetually without new compensation.
The conflict underscores the fundamental policy question: Do intellectual property laws grant tech companies the right to scrape and utilize all content available online as “training data,” or must they negotiate licenses and compensate creators for the commercial use of their work? The outcome of this legal confrontation is expected to establish a major precedent that will affect copyright and business models across the publishing, music, and entertainment industries.
