Copyright Wars 2: Hollywood Rising

OpenAI surely had the apology ready before Sora's IP infringement machine ever saw the light of day. Can other rightsholders follow the lead set by Hollywood?

by Rob Corbidge

Published: 15:08, 09 October 2025

Well, it happened. OpenAI's Sora 2 video app was unleashed on the world and, as predicted, and as was likely intentional, ran straight into copyright issues. This time, however, OpenAI weren't dealing with the herd of disputatious cats that is the publishing industry, they were up against the entertainment industry, an entirely more unified proposition when it comes to money.

While OpenAI clearly knew it would run into copyright trouble, it seems likely they were hoping for a more piecemeal response. Instead, this week the Motion Picture Association (MPA), representing the major studios, released a statement making it clear in uncharacteristically plain terms than any and all violations of its members IP must cease immediately:

"Since Sora 2's release, videos that infringe our members' films, shows, and characters have proliferated on OpenAI’s service and across social media. While OpenAI clarified it will 'soon' offer rightsholders more control over character generation, they must acknowledge it remains their responsibility - not rightsholders' - to prevent infringement on the Sora 2 service. OpenAI needs to take immediate and decisive action to address this issue. Well-established copyright law safeguards the rights of creators and applies here."

There's not much ambiguity in that, is there?

The MPA was backed up on Wednesday by the major Hollywood talent agency, Creative Artists Agency, which released a statement asking: "The question is, does OpenAI and its partner companies believe that humans, writers, artists, actors, directors, producers, musicians, and athletes deserve to be compensated and credited for the work they create?" 

It seems by going for a Year Zero option on copyright with Sora 2, OpenAI had hoped to create a buzz so buzzy it would drown out the volume of complaints. There was some success in that, given that the app became the No.1 download on the App Store for a while. But while people have clearly enjoyed using it, and the fruits of their fun provided literally seconds of amusement for experienced scrollers in the past few days, it really isn't as seismic as Sam Altman hoped.

Move fast and brake things

In fact Altman responded to the MPA's statement in such rapid manner to cause publishing firms, used to the stonewall approach they have been facing since AI turned up, to doublecheck their feeds. Hollywood seemed to manage in two days more than many publishers have managed in two years. 

Feigning shock at the furore his company had caused, Altman said they'd been "taking feedback from users, rightsholders, and other interested groups". Feedback? If his head was stuck in one of Jimi Hendrix's Marshalls during a full four-minute Woodstock solo, he would have got less feedback than the kind received from the MPA.

Yet Altman promised action, as if provoked by unanticipated results from a good faith exercise: "We will give rightsholders more granular control over generation of characters, similar to the opt-in model for likeness but with additional controls."

That won't do. It won't do at all. You can stick your granularity right up your API, sir. If other people's property is used to make your money, then they must be paid. No opt-outs required. OpenAI has no role in deciding matters of intellectual property. Foxes don't get to be the CEO of the chicken coup.

He continued: "We are hearing from a lot of rightsholders who are very excited for this new kind of 'interactive fan fiction' and think this new kind of engagement will accrue a lot of value to them, but want the ability to specify how their characters can be used (including not at all)."

Interactive fan fiction? Where's the cure for physics and free money for all, Sam - the sort of broad promise made by the original OpenAI project? Operatic cat videos are the base camp to the climb to machines smarter than people? This particular sell of "accrue a lot of value to them" rather reminds me of the "doing work for exposure" ploy used across the content creator world and also the bad old days of the dot com boom, when much work was available to young people if they were just willing to bank the experience and hope for some form of upside rather than actual money. Keep on hustling.

Lastly, pity the poor Japanese creative industry - more closely held to its nation's identity than most. While OpenAI has enjoyed looting their cultural capital ("We'd like to acknowledge the remarkable creative output of Japan - we are struck by how deep the connection between users and Japanese content is") plenty there are taking theft of IP as more than just a commercial liberty and believe it a theft and devaluing of the country's culture itself. In any case, I would be astonished if Nintendo - about as relaxed over IP as a starving pit bull is over an unexpected sausage - does not have an action in the works already.

Make no mistake, this fight is our publishing industry fight too. Now OpenAI has poked some giants, let's see if their "there's no such thing as theft if it's us taking it" magic spell is powerful enough to keep them slumbering.

In the shorter term, in my opinion Sora and its ilk remain a novelty toy, and would remain so even if all guardrails were taken off. That's not to say the technology doesn't have an amazing future ahead of it. At the risk of sounding elitist, most people don't have that truly creative ability, and any tool is only as good as the user bending it to their will. 

Creation without creativity will always be somewhat empty.