The idea that anyone can produce film-quality videos using artificial intelligence is no longer science fiction. With powerful image and video generation models such as Seedance 2.0, users can now create cinematic scenes simply by entering text prompts or uploading photos. What once required a production crew and a studio can now be simulated on a personal device.
The technology has sparked excitement—but also unease. Some figures in the U.S. film and television industry have publicly questioned whether certain AI systems were trained on copyrighted movies and shows without authorization. If generated outputs closely resemble existing works, they argue, copyright infringement could be at stake.
The Developer Debate vs. User Responsibility
This debate, however, involves two separate issues. One concerns the responsibilities of AI developers during the training phase. The other concerns ordinary users who generate and share content. The legal risks for these two groups are not the same.
Globally, most lawsuits involving generative AI focus on whether developers infringed copyright by scraping protected works without permission. These cases typically target AI companies rather than individual users.
When Does AI-Generated Content Cross the Line?
For individuals, the greater concern lies in how generated content is used. Whether personal AI creations infringe copyright generally depends on three factors.
First, similarity to a specific existing work. If a generated scene closely replicates a recognizable movie sequence—mirroring its composition, characters, and dialogue—it may cross the line into infringement. By contrast, stylistic imitation alone, such as creating something “in the style of 1980s Hong Kong cinema” or evoking the atmosphere of a Hollywood superhero film, is typically not protected by copyright. Style itself is not ownership.
Second, the use of identifiable characters or trademarks. Prompting an AI system to generate a well-known character—such as Iron Man—could implicate not only copyright but also trademark rights and, in some cases, personality or publicity rights. The more recognizable the character, the higher the legal exposure.
Third, the manner of distribution and commercial use. Content created purely for private enjoyment and never shared publicly generally carries limited practical risk. In reality, major entertainment companies rarely pursue purely personal, non-commercial use. Legal action tends to follow economic incentives.
That said, once AI-generated content is uploaded to YouTube, shared on social media, incorporated into business presentations, entered into competitions, or otherwise connected to commercial activity, legal exposure increases. Even if the individual creator does not directly profit, social media platforms themselves operate within commercial ecosystems, which complicates the analysis.
Creative Freedom Does Not Mean Legal Immunity
For users experimenting with tools like Seedance 2.0, several precautions are advisable.
1. Avoid directly requesting recreation of specific film scenes.
2. Avoid generating clearly identifiable characters or branded elements.
3. Refrain from public distribution unless confident the work is genuinely original.
4. And if the content is intended for commercial use, consult legal or industry professionals beforehand.
As Taiwan’s creative and media industries increasingly explore generative AI technologies, these distinctions will become more important. AI expands creative access, but it does not eliminate intellectual property boundaries. What may feel like original inspiration could, through the training patterns of a model, draw heavily from existing works in ways the user does not immediately recognize.
The age of AI filmmaking may indeed be here. But so too is the responsibility to understand where creativity ends and infringement begins.
*The author is a professor in the Department of Radio and Television at National Taiwan University of Arts, a historical novelist, and former independent director of Fubon Financial Holdings.
This article was originally published in le penseur（奔騰思潮） and is republished here with permission.
