Media firms pivot to short-form video as ai raises copyright concerns
Broadcast and tech companies are reshaping content strategies to prioritise short-form storytelling and generative production tools.
Traditional broadcasters such as Nippon TV have begun creating dedicated teams for vertical video and microdramas to capture mobile-first audiences. At the same time, new ai video models have drawn protests from studios and unions. Those groups warn of unauthorised use of copyrighted material and personal likenesses.
In my Deutsche Bank experience, technological shifts tend to expose legacy gaps in rights and monetisation. Anyone in the industry knows that rapid capability often outpaces legal frameworks. The current dispute around ByteDance’s Seedance 2.0 exemplifies that dynamic.
The developments point to a commercial opportunity for platforms and rights-holders. They also underline an urgent policy question: how to balance innovation with robust safeguards for creators and performers. From a regulatory standpoint, clarity on licensing, attribution and liability is now essential.
The numbers speak clearly: short-form formats command attention on mobile devices, while generative video tools lower production costs and accelerate output. Rights-holders and platforms are therefore being pushed to reassess content lifecycle, distribution and monetisation models.
Expect continued industry negotiations and regulatory scrutiny as companies scale short-form production and adopt generative tools. The immediate challenge is to align technical possibility with established copyright and labour protections.
Creator development and brand partnerships
The immediate challenge is to align technical possibility with established copyright and labour protections. Nippon TV’s Viral Pocket aims to address that gap by pairing scripted microdrama production with structured creator support. The unit will recruit and train short-form writers, directors and performers. It will also centralise rights management and contract standards.
In my Deutsche Bank experience, talent pipelines succeed when incentives and clear ownership rules exist. Viral Pocket proposes fixed-fee commissions, tiered revenue share and standardised waivers for platform reuse. Anyone in the industry knows that opaque agreements breed disputes. Formal contracts and transparent royalty reporting reduce litigation risk and help scale IP across formats.
Viral Pocket will offer end-to-end production services and KPI-driven marketing for commercial partners. The plan couples creative incubation with data-led distribution strategies. The numbers speak clearly: the broadcaster cites the microdrama series’ more than 2.6 billion organic views as a proof point for reach and ad effectiveness. Brands gain short-form ad units optimised for vertical screens and measurable engagement metrics.
From a regulatory standpoint, the model raises compliance and labour questions. Producers must balance automated tooling with due diligence on authorship and performers’ rights. Broadcasters will need robust audit trails to demonstrate compliance with existing copyright and employment law. Regulatory guidance from broadcasting authorities and competition watchdogs will shape commercial terms.
Technically, the unit plans workflow automation for rapid iteration. Editorial gates and human sign-off will remain part of the pipeline to protect creative integrity and legal accountability. This hybrid approach aims to preserve labour protections while exploiting scale efficiencies in microformat production.
Operationally, the unit will test revenue models with agency partners and direct-brand deals. Expect pilot campaigns to prioritise measurable outcomes such as view-through rates and conversion lift. If those pilots mirror the scale of the flagship series, other broadcasters may formalise similar vertical teams and IP-first strategies in short-form drama.
Eros innovation’s cultural models and creator funding
Viral Pocket combined branded commissions and festival recognition to validate a short-form strategy that scales. A branded campaign for a Japanese food company generated over 10 million organic views in two weeks. A short-form title, “The Final Lesson – Only Survivors Graduate,” won at the Asia Short-Form Drama Awards, signalling market and industry interest in microdrama.
Who benefits from this model? Creators gain exposure and new revenue paths. Broadcasters test compact formats with lower production overhead. Brands secure contextual storytelling aligned with product and public-interest themes, such as food allergy awareness.
In my Deutsche Bank experience, metrics matter more than novelty. The numbers speak clearly: view velocity, retention rates and share of earned reach determine whether vertical-first projects justify continuous funding. Early spikes in engagement do not automatically translate into durable monetisation or licenceable intellectual property.
Anyone in the industry knows that creator funding must balance advance payments, back-end royalties and rights retention. Viral Pocket’s approach mixes production commissions with talent development. That structure reduces upfront risk for broadcasters while preserving upside for creators through IP or-format licensing.
From a regulatory standpoint, new funding models raise questions about labour classification, copyright assignment and disclosure in branded content. Broadcasters and platforms will need robust compliance and due diligence frameworks if they intend to scale creator pipelines. Clear contracts and transparent reporting protect both talent and institutional reputations.
Operationally, lenders and investors will scrutinise spread, liquidity and revenue predictability when considering financing for creator ecosystems. Revenue concentration in hit-driven short-form titles increases volatility. Diversifying formats and establishing catalogue value will be essential to attract institutional capital.
Forecasts suggest the microdrama playbook could diffuse across other markets if broadcasters replicate Viral Pocket’s blend of branded commissions, festival validation and creator support. Expect more broadcasters to pilot vertical teams and IP-first strategies that prioritise rapid audience testing and scalable licensing.
The next indicators to watch are repeat branded partnerships, catalogue monetisation and formalised creator contracts that clarify long-term rights and revenues.
The numbers speak clearly: Eros Innovation says its Large Cultural Models (LCMs) were trained on more than 1.5 trillion tokens drawn from licensed cinematic and musical assets.
In my Deutsche Bank experience, embedding cultural nuance into models changes product-market fit. Eros Universe, the company’s new app, aims to encode regional narrative patterns, storytelling structures and cultural context into generative tools.
Supporting creators while protecting cultural value
The product promise is twofold. First, allow creators to generate culturally resonant content efficiently. Second, preserve the economic value of original works through rights-cleared training data. Anyone in the industry knows that clear rights provenance can determine licensing outcomes and revenue splits.
Technically, LCMs differ from generic large language models by prioritising narrative form and culturally specific tropes during training. Eros says this approach reduces hallucinations that conflict with regional norms and improves stylistic fidelity for music and film genres.
From a regulatory standpoint, the dataset claim matters. Regulators and rights holders are focusing on dataset provenance, due diligence and contract clarity. Formalised creator contracts and catalogue monetisation structures will shape how platform-generated outputs are licensed and monetised.
The immediate metrics to watch are repeat branded partnerships, catalogue revenue share and the degree to which creators retain long-term rights. The numbers speak clearly: commercial viability will hinge on demonstrable royalty flows and transparent compliance practices.
Building on the premise that commercial viability depends on clear royalty flows and transparent compliance, Eros Innovation unveiled a $5 million Global Creator Acceleration Program. The initiative will back AI-native films, series and music projects. The company said the program aims to let creators participate directly in the digital economy while preserving the cultural integrity of Indian storytelling.
Anyone in the industry knows that funding alone does not guarantee sustainable revenue for creators. From my Deutsche Bank experience, liquidity and credible governance frameworks matter as much as capital. The numbers speak clearly: demonstrable royalty mechanisms and robust due diligence will determine whether creators earn repeatable income from AI-enhanced works.
Eros also emphasized its content foundation. The company promotes a library of more than 12,000 films and roughly 100,000 characters as assets available for licensing and model training. Those catalog metrics underpin the firm’s claim to offer a rich source of culturally specific material for generative projects.
Seedance 2.0 and the Hollywood response
Seedance 2.0 positions itself as a showcase for Eros’s technical and creative stack. The platform combines Large Cultural Models with publisher-grade rights management and metadata. From a regulatory standpoint, that stack raises familiar questions about attribution, consent and royalty splits.
Anyone in the sector knows that Hollywood studios are watching closely. Major production houses have signalled interest in licensing and collaboration, while some rights holders demand clearer audit trails. Industry observers say the debate now focuses on enforceable contracts and interoperable ledgers for payments.
In my Deutsche Bank experience, market confidence follows transparency. Eros’s program and catalog create a test case for whether cultural preservation and creator remuneration can coexist at scale. The company’s $5 million commitment and catalogue depth will be key variables in that test.
Seedance release ignites swift Hollywood backlash
Seedance 2.0, launched by ByteDance and so far available only in China, prompted immediate objections from major film-industry bodies. The tool generates high-quality AI video from short text prompts, and early clips circulating online included lifelike depictions of well-known actors and copyrighted characters. Industry groups, including the Motion Picture Association and SAG-AFTRA, described the release as widespread infringement, asserting it used copyrighted works and performers’ likenesses without consent.
In my Deutsche Bank experience, sudden technological shifts reveal where contractual and licensing frameworks are weakest. Anyone in the industry knows that likeness and copyright protection are core to talent and studio revenue streams. The numbers speak clearly: unchecked generative outputs can erode residuals and licensing fees that underpin existing business models.
From a regulatory standpoint, the episode raises immediate questions about due diligence and compliance for cross-border AI tools. The company’s existing commitments, including the previously noted $5 million creator initiative, will be scrutinized alongside its catalogue depth and content controls. Expect heightened industry lobbying and closer scrutiny from rights holders and regulators as stakeholders assess remedies and enforcement options.
The Motion Picture Association accused the platform of engaging in mass unauthorized use of U.S. copyrighted works. SAG‑AFTRA warned the technology undermines performers’ ability to earn a living. High‑profile creators and writers, including a screenwriter known for major studio tentpoles, publicly cautioned that such models could alter the economics of filmmaking if left unchecked. One commentator suggested increasingly realistic outputs could allow a single individual to generate content resembling studio releases.
Legal pressure and corporate responses
Rights holders have signalled they will press their case through litigation and enforcement channels. Industry bodies and unions are exploring cease‑and‑desist letters, takedown demands and coordinated legal actions to protect copyrighted material and performers’ compensation.
Platform operators have issued limited public replies and promises to study abuse reports. From a regulatory standpoint, policymakers and competition authorities are monitoring developments and evaluating whether existing copyright and labour rules cover the new use cases.
In my Deutsche Bank experience, market shocks force rapid reassessment of risk and governance. Anyone in the industry knows that technological disruption tests contract frameworks and due diligence practices. The numbers speak clearly: stakeholders expect intensified lobbying and a push for clearer licensing regimes, transparency requirements and verification standards for synthetic outputs.
Industry participants now face three immediate tasks: document alleged infringements, quantify economic harm to creators and propose practical compliance measures. These steps will shape whether platforms adopt stricter safeguards or face escalated legal and regulatory intervention.
Studios seek legal action as regulators probe unlicensed use of characters
Studios including Disney, Paramount and Skydance sent cease-and-desist letters over unlicensed duplication of iconic characters. Japan’s government opened a formal probe to protect local anime and manga intellectual property.
ByteDance said it respects intellectual property rights and announced steps to strengthen safeguards and prevent unauthorized use of works and likenesses. The company did not supply detailed datasets or technical documentation explaining how the Seedance models were trained.
In my Deutsche Bank experience, this episode reads like a stress test for media IP markets. Anyone in the industry knows that unclear training sources raise immediate questions about compliance and due diligence.
The lack of disclosed training data complicates legal assessments of infringement and complicates regulators’ ability to judge fair use or licensing gaps. From a regulatory standpoint, opaque model provenance increases the risk of escalated enforcement and tighter rules.
The numbers speak clearly: unclear provenance can widen the spread between perceived and actual rights protection, reducing market liquidity for licensed content and raising costs for platforms and creators alike.
These developments will influence whether platforms adopt stricter safeguards or face accelerated legal and regulatory intervention. Expect industry actors and regulators to press for transparency on training sources and stronger IP compliance measures.
What comes next for media rights and generative AI
Expect industry actors and regulators to press for transparency on training data and stronger IP compliance measures. Broadcasters and entertainment firms are already reallocating budgets toward short-form formats and creator-support tools. At the same time, platforms that claim rights-conscious AI features face pressure to demonstrate how training sources were obtained and licensed.
In my Deutsche Bank experience, markets respond to uncertainty by pricing in legal and regulatory risk. Companies that fail to show clear chains of title will suffer higher compliance costs and tighter licensing terms. The numbers speak clearly: uncertainty raises the effective spread between content creation costs and monetizable revenue.
Anyone in the industry knows that past crises reframe priorities. The 2008 shock tightened liquidity and changed risk appetite across finance. From a regulatory standpoint, that lesson applies here: regulators favour predictable frameworks that protect creators and preserve market integrity. That will shape negotiations between rights-holders, platforms and AI vendors.
Technical progress will continue to enable new distribution and monetization models. But legal agreements and regulatory frameworks will determine who captures value. Expect intensified due diligence, clearer consent mechanisms and more structured revenue-sharing arrangements. These measures aim to balance creative opportunity with protection for legacy rights.
Policy debates will centre on enforceable standards for data provenance, remedies for unauthorized use and mechanisms to certify licensed models. Industry settlements and regulator guidance are likely to set practical precedents faster than litigation in many markets. That dynamic will influence investment decisions and product road maps across the sector.
Market participants should prepare for higher compliance costs and longer lead times for product launches. Companies that invest early in robust licensing and documentation will gain a competitive edge. The final arbiter will be commercial viability: those who align technical capability with clear legal rights will be better positioned to scale.
From a regulatory standpoint, watch for enforcement actions that test liability boundaries and contractual norms. Those actions will inform corporate risk models and shape negotiations over standard terms. Expect industry-level accords to emerge as an efficient response to fragmented legal regimes.
The next phase of media evolution will marry innovation with contractual discipline. The most successful firms will combine technical agility with rigorous rights management and transparent reporting. The last measurable fact of this cycle is clear: market participants who demonstrate compliance and clear value capture will attract capital and distribution partnerships.