Who Owns the Likeness, Anyway?
When ByteDance's new AI video generator, Seedance 2.0, recently drew fire from powerful Hollywood groups over claims it used actors' likenesses without permission, the entertainment industry was swift to demand fixes. Reportedly, the tool allowed the creation of realistic depictions, triggering immediate concerns about intellectual property and the sanctity of performance rights. Yet, this public
outcry from an industry valued at over $100 billion in the US alone, rings hollow against its own well-documented practices. Contrast this with the case of Hattie McDaniel, the first African American to win an Oscar in 1940. While her image is now iconic, she died in poverty, her likeness and talent having generated vast wealth for studios while she received a pittance and faced segregation.
Similarly, countless musicians and artists have seen their original compositions and cultural contributions 'sampled' or outright appropriated, particularly from marginalized communities, without adequate compensation or even credit. The current furor over AI and ByteDance conveniently sidesteps the legacy of an industry that routinely profits from intellectual property without fair recompense,
particularly when the creators lack the legal and financial leverage of a major studio. When a Chinese tech company appears to leverage digital likenesses, it’s a 'copyright violation.' But when Hollywood built its golden age on the uncredited blues riffs or the stolen stories of indigenous communities, it was merely 'inspiration' or 'creative license.' This double standard isn't about protecting