May 19, 2025 • 27 mins
Courtroom battles are reshaping the film industry in ways that affect everyone from A-list stars to streaming subscribers. When Scarlett Johansson sued Disney over Black Widow's simultaneous streaming release, she wasn't just fighting for her paycheck—she was challenging how talent gets compensated in the digital age. The resulting alleged $40 million settlement forced studios everywhere to rewrite contracts with streaming contingencies.
Meanwhile, across the globe, Nigerian filmmaker Femi Adebayo made history with a judgment against digital pirates who cleverly misused his film's promotional materials. His three-year legal fight established crucial precedent for Nollywood creators and signaled that copyright protection extends beyond Hollywood's borders.
Technology continues to create fascinating legal disruptions. When Quentin Tarantino announced plans to auction Pulp Fiction NFTs, Miramax quickly filed suit, arguing his 1993 contract never contemplated blockchain tokens. Though they settled privately, the dispute highlighted how decades-old agreements struggle to address technologies that didn't exist when the ink dried.
The most provocative developments involve artificial intelligence. Buenos Aires prosecutors are challenging their own government for failing to regulate AI systems that clone faces and voices without consent, framing digital identity as a constitutional right. Simultaneously, Chinese courts ruled that images created with AI tools can receive copyright protection—but only when significant human creativity guides the process.
From Japanese courts imposing record penalties against "fast movie" channels that condense films into unauthorized summaries to European judges limiting what information YouTube must share about copyright infringers, these cases collectively demonstrate that intellectual property law isn't just legal background noise—it's the script determining who controls the stories we love.
Whether you're creating content, distributing it, or simply enjoying it as a fan, understanding these shifting legal frameworks provides a fascinating new lens through which to view your favorite films. Subscribe now to explore more intersections of creativity and the fine print that governs it.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
There's always a script.
Sometimes it's written by ascreenwriter, sometimes by a
lawyer and sometimes by amachine that doesn't sleep.
In this episode, we rewind thereels, not to the plot twists on
screen, but to the plot twistsin court, because behind every
blockbuster, indie, darling orviral stream, there's a contract
clause, a trademark spat or anAI glitch waiting to go full
(00:23):
drama.
Forget deleted scenes these arethe ones they wish you'd.
Speaker 2 (00:31):
You are listening to Intangiblia, the podcast of
intangible law playing talkabout intellectual property.
Please welcome your host,leticia Caminero.
Speaker 3 (00:42):
Welcome to Intangiblia, the podcast where
creativity meets the fine print.
I'm Leticia Caminero.
Welcome to Intangiblia, thepodcast where creativity meets
the fine print.
I'm Leticia Caminero.
Speaker 1 (00:49):
And I'm Artemisa, coded clever and deeply into
director's cuts of lawsuits.
Speaker 3 (00:54):
This episode was created using AI tools,
including Artemisa.
Here, though, no faces weredeep-faked in the making of this
podcast.
Yet, and since the Cannes FilmFestival is happening right now,
we couldn't resist.
While stars climbed the palaissteps and auteurs chased the
(01:16):
palm door, we're rolling out adifferent kind of film feature,
one where the action happens incourtrooms, not on screen,
because behind every premierethere's a paper trail, behind
every red carpet, a rightsdispute.
Speaker 1 (01:34):
From Nollywood to Netflix, Tokyo to Buenos Aires,
we're unspooling the cases thatkept studios up at night.
Speaker 3 (01:40):
So if you've ever stayed for the end, credits this
episode's for you.
Speaker 1 (01:47):
We're all legal, let's begin.
Speaker 3 (01:52):
We start not with a bang, but with a contrarian and
a superhero In 2021, marvel fanswere lining up to see Black
Widow.
For some that meant theaters,for others the couch and Disney
Plus Premier Access.
Same film, different ticket.
But for Scarlett Johansson thatrelease strategy was a breach,
(02:14):
not a bonus.
Speaker 1 (02:15):
It was like Natasha Romanoff took down Thanos, only
to get blindsided by the fineprint.
Here's the twist Scarlett'scontract gave her a chunk of the
box office profits, but whenDisney dropped Black Widow on
streaming the same day it hittheaters, her cut shrank faster
than a Marvel runtime, with nopost-credit scene.
Speaker 3 (02:37):
Her lawsuit argued that Disney intentionally
sabotaged the theatrical releaseto drive up Disney Plus
subscriptions withoutrenegotiating her deal.
A bold accusation and an evenbolder public clapback from
Disney, who called her lawsuitcallous during a pandemic.
Speaker 1 (02:58):
Oh, they went full corporate villain and it
backfired spectacularly.
Support flooded in fromindustry, unions, fellow actors
and fans who saw this not justas a paycheck squabble but a
much bigger fight aboutstreaming era accountability.
Speaker 3 (03:13):
And it wasn't just about Johansson.
This lawsuit tapped into alarger industry reckoning.
If A-list stars can't protecttheir back-end deals in the age
of streaming, who can?
Can't protect their back-enddeals in the age of streaming?
Speaker 1 (03:25):
who can Is illegal meat.
The heart of the dispute Wascontract interpretation.
In a market disrupted by tech,the term theatrical release had
always meant one thing until2020.
Rewrote the rules.
Speaker 3 (03:38):
The case never made it to trial.
Disney and Johansson settledfor a rumored $40 million zero
cents, and they've since patchedthings up.
She's even working with themagain on future projects, but
the impact permanent.
Speaker 1 (03:55):
Studios now bake streaming contingencies into
contracts, contingencies intocontracts.
Actors, producers, evendirectors, are asking what
happens when the screen getssmaller, but the stakes get
bigger.
Speaker 3 (04:20):
So, while Natasha may be gone from the MCU,
Johansson's legal move added anew superpower to the Hollywood
playbook contractual foresight.
Speaker 1 (04:25):
Forget capes.
Read your clauses.
Speaker 3 (04:28):
From Hollywood's red carpet to Nollywood's digital
trenches in 2020,.
Survival of Jalili, a Yorubalanguage comedy film starring
Nigerian powerhouse Femi Adebayo, hit Netflix.
The movie was a sequel, a crowdpleaser and a hit across the
(04:49):
diaspora.
But not long after it startedtrending, another channel
started cashing in.
Speaker 1 (04:58):
Enter Aforavo TV, a YouTube channel that played it
sly.
They didn't upload the fullfilm, no, instead they dangled
the trailer, used the poster,branded it like the original and
redirected audiences to fakelinks, racking up views, traffic
and ad revenue.
Speaker 3 (05:17):
It was the digital version of a now golf DVD cover,
and in a streaming economythat's not just annoying it's
lucrative piracy.
Speaker 1 (05:28):
So Adebayo sued and he didn't just sue for takedown,
he sued for damages.
Speaker 3 (05:33):
The case scrolled through Nigeria's courts for
three years, but in 2024, itmade history.
Adebayo won $25 million indamages roughly $60,000 USD and
a full injunction against thechannel.
Speaker 1 (05:51):
The judgment wasn't just about him.
He called it a win for allNollywood.
Because it signals somethingnew digital deception has
(06:18):
consequences, and Nigerianfilmmakers are now filing claims
citing Adebayo's case asprecedent.
It wasn't just a ruling.
It was a signal to everychannel peddling pirated content
in sleek packaging.
Speaker 3 (06:32):
For creators around the world.
The lesson is clear Copyrightisn't just for Hollywood, and
legal tools are becoming moreaccessible if you're willing to
use them.
Speaker 1 (06:41):
So next time someone slaps your poster on a bootleg
trailer to steal your traffic,channel your inner Jalili and
lawyer up.
Speaker 3 (06:48):
Now for a case with a twist.
Even Tarantino couldn't havescripted it better.
In 2021, the cult directorannounced something bold he
would auction off Pulp FictionNFTs fragments of the original
screenplay handwritten withexclusive voice commentary it
was vintage Tarantino cool,confident, slightly chaotic.
Speaker 1 (07:14):
but there was one problem Pulp Fiction didn't
belong entirely to him.
Speaker 3 (07:19):
Miramax, the studio that financed and distributed
the film back in the 90s, saidexcuses.
They stood claiming Tarantino'sNFT stand violated the rights
to the film, especially the bitof it works.
Speaker 1 (07:36):
This wasn't just a squabble over swag.
It was the first major legalbrawl over NFTs in the film
industry.
Tarantino argued that his 1993contract gave him the publishing
rights to the screenplay.
Nfts, he said, were just a newway of publishing.
Case closed.
Speaker 3 (07:56):
Not quite.
Miramax saw NFTs as merchandise, derivative, commercial and,
crucially, not covered in theoriginal contract because, well,
blockchains weren't a thing yetthis is where IP law stumbles
over time travel.
Speaker 1 (08:13):
The contract was signed in a pre-digital age, but
the tech exploded decades later.
So the court had to ask is anNFT a book, a collectible or a
brand new beast?
Speaker 3 (08:26):
Before a ruling could drop, the parties settled out
of court in 2022.
Terms were confidential, buthere's what we do know.
Miramax is now activelyexploring NFTs of its own
library, so it seems theyrealized there was something
worth fighting for.
Speaker 1 (08:49):
This case lit up Hollywood legal teams.
Studios rushed to rewritecontracts.
Artists got a new warning Justbecause you created it doesn't
mean you can mint it.
Speaker 3 (09:00):
And the conversation expanded beyond film.
Musicians, authors, even comicbook creators started coming
through old contracts to seewhat rights they actually held
in this new digital economy.
Speaker 1 (09:17):
In the end, Tarantino didn't just tokenize Pulp
Fiction.
He tokenized a moment when filmmet blockchain and copyright
lawyers everywhere got nervous.
Speaker 3 (09:25):
Lesson if you're planning to auction your script
in JPEGs, make sure the studioisn't holding the receipt.
Let's jump to 2024, buenosAires.
No Hollywood studio, noblockbuster name, just a quiet
legal earthquake shaking thefoundations of identity and AI.
Speaker 1 (09:44):
The premise Classic sci-fi, except this time it was
real.
Upload a selfie and a websitecould clone your face, feed it a
few lines of text and suddenlyyour voice, your actual voice,
was narrating something younever said Sounds fun until it
isn't Argentina's publicprosecutor thought so too.
Speaker 3 (10:07):
They filed a class action lawsuit, not against a
specific AI company, but againstthe Buenos Aires government
itself for failing to regulatethe platforms enabling this
digital mimicry.
Speaker 1 (10:20):
It's a bold move and it reframes the conversation.
Instead of chasing everywebsite, they aimed higher,
demanding systemic regulation toprotect citizens' likeness,
voices and identities in theface of rapid tech.
Speaker 3 (10:34):
The case raised big questions.
Can your voice be copyrighted?
Is your face part of your IP?
When does a synthetic versionof you become a legal violation?
Speaker 1 (10:46):
And the trigger wasn't just theoretical.
In Argentina's growing film andad industry, these AI tools
were already being used to dubactors, simulate cameos, even
resurrect long-gone celebrities,all without consent Unions
started speaking up, mediaethics watchdogs chimed in For
(11:10):
once.
Speaker 3 (11:10):
Lawyers, artists and activists were all on the same
side.
Speaker 1 (11:15):
Here's where it gets even more interesting.
Argentina's legal systemrecognizes personal image and
voice as part of the right toidentity, a constitutional right
.
So AI impersonation potentiallyunconstitutional.
Speaker 3 (11:34):
The case is still unfolding, but it's already
influenced legislation drafts.
Politicians are calling for AI,transparency, labels, consent
protocols and liability forunauthorized clones.
Speaker 1 (11:49):
While Hollywood debates whether dead actors can
star in sequels, Argentina isasking a bigger question Do you
still own your image when themachine can steal it in seconds?
Speaker 3 (11:59):
This isn't just a local story.
It's a global test case for howidentity and IP converge and in
a world of generativeeverything.
It's only the beginning.
Speaker 1 (12:11):
Because, in the end, what's more intangible than your
own voice?
Now?
Speaker 3 (12:17):
Germany In 2020, a case reached the Courts of
Justice of the European Union,the JEU, that posed a
deceptively tricky question.
When a user uploads a piratedmovie, what information do right
holders have the right to know?
Speaker 1 (12:37):
The setup.
Constantin Film, a Germandistributor, had two of its
titles, scary Movie 5 and Parker, illegally uploaded to YouTube.
Standard takedown done, butConstantin wanted more.
They wanted to find theuploaders.
Speaker 3 (12:53):
So they asked Google for the email addresses, phone
numbers and IP addresses behindthe accounts, but YouTube pushed
back Under EU law.
They said platforms are onlyrequired to share the name and
address of the user, noteverything else.
Which?
Speaker 1 (13:10):
led to the existential tech law question.
Does address include a digitalone?
Speaker 3 (13:15):
The CJEU said no, no.
In a firm ruling.
The court clarified thataddress refers to physical
postal addresses, not email, notIP, not digital breadcrumbs.
The ruling reaffirmed the EU'sstrong stance on personal data
protection, even in the contextof copyright enforcement of
(13:37):
copyright enforcement.
Speaker 1 (13:38):
So basically, YouTube could say sure, here's their
username in a PO box if theygave us one, which means
copyright holders hit a wall ifusers hide behind anonymity and,
legally, platforms don't haveto help them get around it.
Speaker 3 (13:58):
This cast a ripple across Europe's creative sector.
Some call it a blow toenforcement.
Others praise it as a win foronline privacy.
Speaker 1 (14:07):
And, let's be honest, it's a classic IP tension
protecting authors versusprotecting users and this time
the privacy side took the lead.
Speaker 3 (14:16):
But the ruling also invited governments to act.
Speaker 1 (14:19):
The court basically said if you want broader
disclosure rules, you'll need topass better laws, which is what
several EU countries are nowtrying to do, drafting
legislation that balancescopyright claims with GDPR
protections A tightrope walk instilettos.
Speaker 3 (14:36):
So, yes, a case about scary movie five might sound
like background noise, but itunderscored a much louder truth
that enforcement without accessis just a beautifully worded
frustration.
Speaker 1 (14:50):
Or, as YouTube might say, comment below, if we can
find you.
Speaker 2 (14:57):
In Tangiblia, the podcast of intangible law plain
talk about intellectual property.
Speaker 3 (15:03):
In 2023, a stylish digital poster started making
waves in China's film designcircles.
It depicted a poised woman witha dramatic, cinematic vibe
sleek, atmospheric the kind ofimage you'd expect on a Cannes
promo wall.
Only it wasn't painted orphotographed.
(15:23):
It was generated using stablediffusion, an open source AI
tool trained on mountains ofvisual data.
Speaker 1 (15:32):
So who gets the credit or, more importantly, the
copyright?
That was the question when theimage created by an artist known
online as he was repostedwithout permission on Baidu, a
content platform owned by Baidu,china's search engine.
Speaker 3 (15:47):
He is hood, and at the core was a fierce debate Can
an image partly created by AIbe protected under copyright law
, or is it just a fancy remixfrom a machine that no one owns?
Speaker 1 (16:02):
The Beijing Internet Corps ruled in favor of the
artist.
They said yes because while theAI generated the pixels, the
creative decisions behind theprompt, the selection and
post-processing came from ahuman, and that, they said, was
enough for protection.
Speaker 3 (16:19):
The Corps didn't treat the AI like a co-author.
It treated it like a tool, justas a camera is to a
photographer or a brush to apainter.
Speaker 1 (16:30):
That ruling was China's first legal recognition
of human-guided AI art ascopyrightable, and it lit up
Weibo Douyin and the Chinesecreative industry with debates,
hot takes and cautious optimism.
Speaker 3 (16:46):
It also pressured platforms like Baidu to revisit
their reposting policies,because now AI Made isn't a
free-for-all anymore.
Speaker 1 (16:58):
And film studios.
They were watching.
This case cracked open legaldoors for concept artists, vfx
teams and marketing creatives,who are now using AI to design
everything from costumes toteaser posters.
Speaker 3 (17:12):
But the ruling came with nuance.
If AI does everything, no humanselection or editing it likely
isn't protected.
So the line is delicate.
Speaker 1 (17:30):
Creativity must still be human driven, which is
poetic.
Right In the age of machineimagination, the law is still
clinging to the spark of humanintent.
Speaker 3 (17:35):
In short, if you feed the machine and shape its
output, the result might beyours, but if you're just
pressing generate, don't expecta judge to call you an artist.
Speaker 1 (17:47):
Or to put it more bluntly copyright law still
needs to fill your fingerprints.
Speaker 3 (17:51):
In 2021, japanese copyright lawyers found
themselves watching moviesreally fast.
Not by choice, though.
A viral trend called fastmovies had taken over YouTube.
Users were posting heavilycondensed versions of full
length films.
Condensed versions of fulllength films edited down to 10
or 15 minutes, complete withnarration subtitles and spoiler
(18:20):
pack summaries.
Speaker 1 (18:21):
It's like binging the entire plot of Parasite while
waiting for your ramen to boil.
The problem these weren'treviews or parodies.
They were unauthorized editsclipped directly from the
original films and repackagedfor clicks, spoil the film, rack
up millions of views andcollect ad revenue.
Speaker 3 (18:37):
Japanese studios already sensitive to piracy had
had enough.
In 2021, tohye Tonikatsu, twoof Japan's major film houses,
filed criminal charges againstthree individuals behind these
channels.
Speaker 1 (18:54):
Yes, criminal, not just civil, claims for damages.
In 2022, the court issued theharshest piracy penalty in
Japanese film history 500million yen in damages, that's
over 3,500,000 USD per person.
Speaker 3 (19:13):
To put it in perspective, they didn't upload
full movies, but the court ruledthat these digest edits
undermine the value of theoriginal work, dissuade people
from watching the full film anddeprive studios of revenue and
control.
Speaker 1 (19:30):
And unlike Hollywood, where fair use often gives room
for criticism or commentary,Japan's copyright law is strict.
If you're using copyrightedcontent, you'd better have
permission or prepare to emptyyour wallet.
Speaker 3 (19:46):
And after the ruling, fast movie uploads disappeared.
Almost overnight, youtubestarted flagging these formats
aggressively.
Film distributors across Asiauploaded the court's decision.
Speaker 1 (20:03):
And critics Mixed reactions.
Some called the penaltyexcessive.
Others said it was about timedigital piracy was treated like
the industrial theft.
It really is.
Speaker 3 (20:13):
It also raised a cultural question.
In a world where short formcontent is the norm, what does
it mean to own a narrative?
When does summarizing becomestealing?
Speaker 1 (20:24):
Wall alert.
The law's opinion is clear.
Clip it, narrate it and profitfrom it.
Without a license, you might bestarring in your own courtroom
drama.
Speaker 3 (20:34):
The lesson from Japan .
Fast movies make for fastlawsuits, and justice moves just
as quickly when studios wanttheir cut.
This begins in Seoul 2020.
The world is mid-pandemic.
A Korean film titled Alivedrops on Netflix the premise A
gamer trapped in his apartmentduring a zombie outbreak,
(20:58):
clinging to Wi-Fi and hope.
It's tense, stylish and soontrending across borders.
Speaker 1 (21:05):
Now jump cut to Los Angeles.
The Hollywood Innovation Group,an American company, had
already acquired the rights toadapt the exact same screenplay
into an English language filmthey made alone, which also came
out in 2020.
Speaker 3 (21:19):
Here's the issue.
Netflix, which had the globaldistribution rights to Alive,
dubbed the Korean film intoEnglish and released it
internationally.
Suddenly Alone wasn't the edgyexclusive remake.
It was a film that looked likea copy.
Speaker 1 (21:38):
Except it wasn't.
Higg sued Netflix, claimingthat their English dub of Alive
infringed on Higg's exclusiveright to create the English
language adaptation exclusiveright to create the English
language adaptation.
Speaker 3 (21:55):
The heart of the case , whether dubbing a foreign
language film into Englishconstitutes creating a new
derivative work or whether it'sjust another form of
distributing the original.
Speaker 1 (22:04):
Netflix argued we license the full rights from the
Korean producers, including allaudiovisual formats.
Dubbing that's distribution,not adaptation.
Speaker 3 (22:16):
It is said not so fast.
In their view, any version inEnglish, even a dub, failed
under their exclusive adaptationcontract.
Speaker 1 (22:25):
The lawsuit made waves.
It exposed a tricky fault linein IP contracts, especially in
the streaming age, because oncefilms go, global rights get
sliced and diced by language,territory, format and sometimes,
assumption.
Speaker 3 (22:42):
We don't have a public judgment.
Most signs point to a quietdismissal or settlement, but the
industry took note.
Speaker 1 (22:51):
Now studios and streamers are drafting much
tighter language around dubbingrights.
Acquired dismissal orsettlement.
But the industry took note.
Now studios and streamers aredrafting much tighter language
around dubbing rights.
English version can mean manythings Voiceover, subtitles,
full remakes.
You better spell it out.
Speaker 3 (23:04):
And for international filmmakers.
There is a growing awarenessthat global reach means global
risk.
What plays in soul can sparklawsuits in LA.
Speaker 1 (23:16):
Moral of the story when it comes to language rights
, clarity isn't just kind, it'scritical.
Speaker 3 (23:21):
Especially when zombies are involved.
Speaker 1 (23:24):
Copyright.
Doesn't sleep, not even in anapocalypse.
Speaker 3 (23:29):
So what did we just witness?
Eight IP battles, each one adifferent genre a superhero
contract thriller, a NollywoodParasite courtroom drama, a
blockchain noir starring QuentinTarantino, an AI identity
horror flick out of Buenos Aires, a German privacy procedural, a
Beijing art house debate aboutmachine-made creativity, a
(23:50):
Japanese short-form tragedy anda zombie language.
Misunderstanding with globaldistribution rights.
Speaker 1 (23:57):
Honestly, I'd binge that anthology.
Speaker 3 (24:01):
Each case brought its own tension, its own stakes,
its own sense of who owns whatand who gets to tell the story.
Because in the end, that's whatIP law in film is really about
Control over the narrative onand off the screen.
Speaker 1 (24:19):
And that control is getting harder to define.
Streaming blurred the linesbetween premieres and piracy, ai
blurred the lines betweencreator and tool, and global
deals made local contracts feelwell, not quite local anymore.
Speaker 3 (24:33):
We saw stars holding studios accountable, we saw
platforms facing lawsuits acrossborders, and we saw judges
redefining what a poster, avoice or a dub even means in the
digital age.
Speaker 1 (24:50):
And still, through all the courtroom monologues and
legal plot twists, one themestayed in focus the law might be
old, but it's not static.
It adapts, it rewrites,sometimes it even improvises.
Speaker 3 (25:08):
And creators.
They're not just making films.
They're navigating contracts,asserting rights, protecting
identities and sometimesaccidentally launching new legal
frontiers with every release.
Speaker 1 (25:24):
So if you're in film and still treating your IP like
background noise, cue dramaticlighting because you're in the
wrong genre.
Treating your IP likebackground noise, cue dramatic
lighting Because you're in thewrong genre, what?
Speaker 3 (25:36):
today's cases show us is that the future of film
isn't just about pixels orplatforms.
It's about power the power toown, to license, to remix and to
resist being remixed withoutpermission.
Speaker 1 (25:52):
And if you're a fan, you're not off the hook either.
You can shape what gets made bywhat you stream, what you share
and, yes, what you fast forwardthrough on YouTube.
Speaker 3 (25:58):
So, whether you're a lawyer, a filmmaker, an actor or
just someone who really loves agood closing credit sequence,
remember every story you lovelives inside a legal framework.
Speaker 1 (26:11):
Sometimes a brilliant one, sometimes a broken one,
but always one worth readingbetween the lines.
Speaker 3 (26:18):
That's it from us today.
We hope this episode gave you anew lens on the films you love
and the rise behind them.
Speaker 1 (26:25):
And if you ever hear someone say it's just a movie,
tell them to check the docket.
Speaker 3 (26:29):
This has been Intangiblia, where IP contracts
and creativity get theirspotlight.
Speaker 1 (26:35):
And where the credit's my role, but the rights
.
Speaker 3 (26:40):
Never fade to black.
Speaker 2 (26:45):
Thank you for listening to Intangiblia, the
podcast of Intangible Lawplaying talk about intellectual
property.
Did you like what we talkedtoday?
Please share with your network.
Do you want to learn more aboutintellectual property?
Subscribe now on your favoritepodcast player.
Follow us on Instagram,facebook, linkedin and Twitter.
(27:05):
Visit our websitewwwintangibliacom.
Copyright Leticia Caminero 2020.
All rights reserved.
This podcast is provided forinformation purposes only.
There's always a script.
Sometimes it's written by ascreenwriter, sometimes by a
lawyer and sometimes by amachine that doesn't sleep.
In this episode, we rewind thereels, not to the plot twists on
screen, but to the plot twistsin court, because behind every
blockbuster, indie, darling orviral stream, there's a contract
clause, a trademark spat or anAI glitch waiting to go full
(00:23):
drama.
Forget deleted scenes these arethe ones they wish you'd.
Speaker 2 (00:31):
You are listening to Intangiblia, the podcast of
intangible law playing talkabout intellectual property.
Please welcome your host,leticia Caminero.
Speaker 3 (00:42):
Welcome to Intangiblia, the podcast where
creativity meets the fine print.
I'm Leticia Caminero.
Welcome to Intangiblia, thepodcast where creativity meets
the fine print.
I'm Leticia Caminero.
Speaker 1 (00:49):
And I'm Artemisa, coded clever and deeply into
director's cuts of lawsuits.
Speaker 3 (00:54):
This episode was created using AI tools,
including Artemisa.
Here, though, no faces weredeep-faked in the making of this
podcast.
Yet, and since the Cannes FilmFestival is happening right now,
we couldn't resist.
While stars climbed the palaissteps and auteurs chased the
(01:16):
palm door, we're rolling out adifferent kind of film feature,
one where the action happens incourtrooms, not on screen,
because behind every premierethere's a paper trail, behind
every red carpet, a rightsdispute.
Speaker 1 (01:34):
From Nollywood to Netflix, Tokyo to Buenos Aires,
we're unspooling the cases thatkept studios up at night.
Speaker 3 (01:40):
So if you've ever stayed for the end, credits this
episode's for you.
Speaker 1 (01:47):
We're all legal, let's begin.
Speaker 3 (01:52):
We start not with a bang, but with a contrarian and
a superhero In 2021, marvel fanswere lining up to see Black
Widow.
For some that meant theaters,for others the couch and Disney
Plus Premier Access.
Same film, different ticket.
But for Scarlett Johansson thatrelease strategy was a breach,
(02:14):
not a bonus.
Speaker 1 (02:15):
It was like Natasha Romanoff took down Thanos, only
to get blindsided by the fineprint.
Here's the twist Scarlett'scontract gave her a chunk of the
box office profits, but whenDisney dropped Black Widow on
streaming the same day it hittheaters, her cut shrank faster
than a Marvel runtime, with nopost-credit scene.
Speaker 3 (02:37):
Her lawsuit argued that Disney intentionally
sabotaged the theatrical releaseto drive up Disney Plus
subscriptions withoutrenegotiating her deal.
A bold accusation and an evenbolder public clapback from
Disney, who called her lawsuitcallous during a pandemic.
Speaker 1 (02:58):
Oh, they went full corporate villain and it
backfired spectacularly.
Support flooded in fromindustry, unions, fellow actors
and fans who saw this not justas a paycheck squabble but a
much bigger fight aboutstreaming era accountability.
Speaker 3 (03:13):
And it wasn't just about Johansson.
This lawsuit tapped into alarger industry reckoning.
If A-list stars can't protecttheir back-end deals in the age
of streaming, who can?
Can't protect their back-enddeals in the age of streaming?
Speaker 1 (03:25):
who can Is illegal meat.
The heart of the dispute Wascontract interpretation.
In a market disrupted by tech,the term theatrical release had
always meant one thing until2020.
Rewrote the rules.
Speaker 3 (03:38):
The case never made it to trial.
Disney and Johansson settledfor a rumored $40 million zero
cents, and they've since patchedthings up.
She's even working with themagain on future projects, but
the impact permanent.
Speaker 1 (03:55):
Studios now bake streaming contingencies into
contracts, contingencies intocontracts.
Actors, producers, evendirectors, are asking what
happens when the screen getssmaller, but the stakes get
bigger.
Speaker 3 (04:20):
So, while Natasha may be gone from the MCU,
Johansson's legal move added anew superpower to the Hollywood
playbook contractual foresight.
Speaker 1 (04:25):
Forget capes.
Read your clauses.
Speaker 3 (04:28):
From Hollywood's red carpet to Nollywood's digital
trenches in 2020,.
Survival of Jalili, a Yorubalanguage comedy film starring
Nigerian powerhouse Femi Adebayo, hit Netflix.
The movie was a sequel, a crowdpleaser and a hit across the
(04:49):
diaspora.
But not long after it startedtrending, another channel
started cashing in.
Speaker 1 (04:58):
Enter Aforavo TV, a YouTube channel that played it
sly.
They didn't upload the fullfilm, no, instead they dangled
the trailer, used the poster,branded it like the original and
redirected audiences to fakelinks, racking up views, traffic
and ad revenue.
Speaker 3 (05:17):
It was the digital version of a now golf DVD cover,
and in a streaming economythat's not just annoying it's
lucrative piracy.
Speaker 1 (05:28):
So Adebayo sued and he didn't just sue for takedown,
he sued for damages.
Speaker 3 (05:33):
The case scrolled through Nigeria's courts for
three years, but in 2024, itmade history.
Adebayo won $25 million indamages roughly $60,000 USD and
a full injunction against thechannel.
Speaker 1 (05:51):
The judgment wasn't just about him.
He called it a win for allNollywood.
Because it signals somethingnew digital deception has
(06:18):
consequences, and Nigerianfilmmakers are now filing claims
citing Adebayo's case asprecedent.
It wasn't just a ruling.
It was a signal to everychannel peddling pirated content
in sleek packaging.
Speaker 3 (06:32):
For creators around the world.
The lesson is clear Copyrightisn't just for Hollywood, and
legal tools are becoming moreaccessible if you're willing to
use them.
Speaker 1 (06:41):
So next time someone slaps your poster on a bootleg
trailer to steal your traffic,channel your inner Jalili and
lawyer up.
Speaker 3 (06:48):
Now for a case with a twist.
Even Tarantino couldn't havescripted it better.
In 2021, the cult directorannounced something bold he
would auction off Pulp FictionNFTs fragments of the original
screenplay handwritten withexclusive voice commentary it
was vintage Tarantino cool,confident, slightly chaotic.
Speaker 1 (07:14):
but there was one problem Pulp Fiction didn't
belong entirely to him.
Speaker 3 (07:19):
Miramax, the studio that financed and distributed
the film back in the 90s, saidexcuses.
They stood claiming Tarantino'sNFT stand violated the rights
to the film, especially the bitof it works.
Speaker 1 (07:36):
This wasn't just a squabble over swag.
It was the first major legalbrawl over NFTs in the film
industry.
Tarantino argued that his 1993contract gave him the publishing
rights to the screenplay.
Nfts, he said, were just a newway of publishing.
Case closed.
Speaker 3 (07:56):
Not quite.
Miramax saw NFTs as merchandise, derivative, commercial and,
crucially, not covered in theoriginal contract because, well,
blockchains weren't a thing yetthis is where IP law stumbles
over time travel.
Speaker 1 (08:13):
The contract was signed in a pre-digital age, but
the tech exploded decades later.
So the court had to ask is anNFT a book, a collectible or a
brand new beast?
Speaker 3 (08:26):
Before a ruling could drop, the parties settled out
of court in 2022.
Terms were confidential, buthere's what we do know.
Miramax is now activelyexploring NFTs of its own
library, so it seems theyrealized there was something
worth fighting for.
Speaker 1 (08:49):
This case lit up Hollywood legal teams.
Studios rushed to rewritecontracts.
Artists got a new warning Justbecause you created it doesn't
mean you can mint it.
Speaker 3 (09:00):
And the conversation expanded beyond film.
Musicians, authors, even comicbook creators started coming
through old contracts to seewhat rights they actually held
in this new digital economy.
Speaker 1 (09:17):
In the end, Tarantino didn't just tokenize Pulp
Fiction.
He tokenized a moment when filmmet blockchain and copyright
lawyers everywhere got nervous.
Speaker 3 (09:25):
Lesson if you're planning to auction your script
in JPEGs, make sure the studioisn't holding the receipt.
Let's jump to 2024, buenosAires.
No Hollywood studio, noblockbuster name, just a quiet
legal earthquake shaking thefoundations of identity and AI.
Speaker 1 (09:44):
The premise Classic sci-fi, except this time it was
real.
Upload a selfie and a websitecould clone your face, feed it a
few lines of text and suddenlyyour voice, your actual voice,
was narrating something younever said Sounds fun until it
isn't Argentina's publicprosecutor thought so too.
Speaker 3 (10:07):
They filed a class action lawsuit, not against a
specific AI company, but againstthe Buenos Aires government
itself for failing to regulatethe platforms enabling this
digital mimicry.
Speaker 1 (10:20):
It's a bold move and it reframes the conversation.
Instead of chasing everywebsite, they aimed higher,
demanding systemic regulation toprotect citizens' likeness,
voices and identities in theface of rapid tech.
Speaker 3 (10:34):
The case raised big questions.
Can your voice be copyrighted?
Is your face part of your IP?
When does a synthetic versionof you become a legal violation?
Speaker 1 (10:46):
And the trigger wasn't just theoretical.
In Argentina's growing film andad industry, these AI tools
were already being used to dubactors, simulate cameos, even
resurrect long-gone celebrities,all without consent Unions
started speaking up, mediaethics watchdogs chimed in For
(11:10):
once.
Speaker 3 (11:10):
Lawyers, artists and activists were all on the same
side.
Speaker 1 (11:15):
Here's where it gets even more interesting.
Argentina's legal systemrecognizes personal image and
voice as part of the right toidentity, a constitutional right
.
So AI impersonation potentiallyunconstitutional.
Speaker 3 (11:34):
The case is still unfolding, but it's already
influenced legislation drafts.
Politicians are calling for AI,transparency, labels, consent
protocols and liability forunauthorized clones.
Speaker 1 (11:49):
While Hollywood debates whether dead actors can
star in sequels, Argentina isasking a bigger question Do you
still own your image when themachine can steal it in seconds?
Speaker 3 (11:59):
This isn't just a local story.
It's a global test case for howidentity and IP converge and in
a world of generativeeverything.
It's only the beginning.
Speaker 1 (12:11):
Because, in the end, what's more intangible than your
own voice?
Now?
Speaker 3 (12:17):
Germany In 2020, a case reached the Courts of
Justice of the European Union,the JEU, that posed a
deceptively tricky question.
When a user uploads a piratedmovie, what information do right
holders have the right to know?
Speaker 1 (12:37):
The setup.
Constantin Film, a Germandistributor, had two of its
titles, scary Movie 5 and Parker, illegally uploaded to YouTube.
Standard takedown done, butConstantin wanted more.
They wanted to find theuploaders.
Speaker 3 (12:53):
So they asked Google for the email addresses, phone
numbers and IP addresses behindthe accounts, but YouTube pushed
back Under EU law.
They said platforms are onlyrequired to share the name and
address of the user, noteverything else.
Which?
Speaker 1 (13:10):
led to the existential tech law question.
Does address include a digitalone?
Speaker 3 (13:15):
The CJEU said no, no.
In a firm ruling.
The court clarified thataddress refers to physical
postal addresses, not email, notIP, not digital breadcrumbs.
The ruling reaffirmed the EU'sstrong stance on personal data
protection, even in the contextof copyright enforcement of
(13:37):
copyright enforcement.
Speaker 1 (13:38):
So basically, YouTube could say sure, here's their
username in a PO box if theygave us one, which means
copyright holders hit a wall ifusers hide behind anonymity and,
legally, platforms don't haveto help them get around it.
Speaker 3 (13:58):
This cast a ripple across Europe's creative sector.
Some call it a blow toenforcement.
Others praise it as a win foronline privacy.
Speaker 1 (14:07):
And, let's be honest, it's a classic IP tension
protecting authors versusprotecting users and this time
the privacy side took the lead.
Speaker 3 (14:16):
But the ruling also invited governments to act.
Speaker 1 (14:19):
The court basically said if you want broader
disclosure rules, you'll need topass better laws, which is what
several EU countries are nowtrying to do, drafting
legislation that balancescopyright claims with GDPR
protections A tightrope walk instilettos.
Speaker 3 (14:36):
So, yes, a case about scary movie five might sound
like background noise, but itunderscored a much louder truth
that enforcement without accessis just a beautifully worded
frustration.
Speaker 1 (14:50):
Or, as YouTube might say, comment below, if we can
find you.
Speaker 2 (14:57):
In Tangiblia, the podcast of intangible law plain
talk about intellectual property.
Speaker 3 (15:03):
In 2023, a stylish digital poster started making
waves in China's film designcircles.
It depicted a poised woman witha dramatic, cinematic vibe
sleek, atmospheric the kind ofimage you'd expect on a Cannes
promo wall.
Only it wasn't painted orphotographed.
(15:23):
It was generated using stablediffusion, an open source AI
tool trained on mountains ofvisual data.
Speaker 1 (15:32):
So who gets the credit or, more importantly, the
copyright?
That was the question when theimage created by an artist known
online as he was repostedwithout permission on Baidu, a
content platform owned by Baidu,china's search engine.
Speaker 3 (15:47):
He is hood, and at the core was a fierce debate Can
an image partly created by AIbe protected under copyright law
, or is it just a fancy remixfrom a machine that no one owns?
Speaker 1 (16:02):
The Beijing Internet Corps ruled in favor of the
artist.
They said yes because while theAI generated the pixels, the
creative decisions behind theprompt, the selection and
post-processing came from ahuman, and that, they said, was
enough for protection.
Speaker 3 (16:19):
The Corps didn't treat the AI like a co-author.
It treated it like a tool, justas a camera is to a
photographer or a brush to apainter.
Speaker 1 (16:30):
That ruling was China's first legal recognition
of human-guided AI art ascopyrightable, and it lit up
Weibo Douyin and the Chinesecreative industry with debates,
hot takes and cautious optimism.
Speaker 3 (16:46):
It also pressured platforms like Baidu to revisit
their reposting policies,because now AI Made isn't a
free-for-all anymore.
Speaker 1 (16:58):
And film studios.
They were watching.
This case cracked open legaldoors for concept artists, vfx
teams and marketing creatives,who are now using AI to design
everything from costumes toteaser posters.
Speaker 3 (17:12):
But the ruling came with nuance.
If AI does everything, no humanselection or editing it likely
isn't protected.
So the line is delicate.
Speaker 1 (17:30):
Creativity must still be human driven, which is
poetic.
Right In the age of machineimagination, the law is still
clinging to the spark of humanintent.
Speaker 3 (17:35):
In short, if you feed the machine and shape its
output, the result might beyours, but if you're just
pressing generate, don't expecta judge to call you an artist.
Speaker 1 (17:47):
Or to put it more bluntly copyright law still
needs to fill your fingerprints.
Speaker 3 (17:51):
In 2021, japanese copyright lawyers found
themselves watching moviesreally fast.
Not by choice, though.
A viral trend called fastmovies had taken over YouTube.
Users were posting heavilycondensed versions of full
length films.
Condensed versions of fulllength films edited down to 10
or 15 minutes, complete withnarration subtitles and spoiler
(18:20):
pack summaries.
Speaker 1 (18:21):
It's like binging the entire plot of Parasite while
waiting for your ramen to boil.
The problem these weren'treviews or parodies.
They were unauthorized editsclipped directly from the
original films and repackagedfor clicks, spoil the film, rack
up millions of views andcollect ad revenue.
Speaker 3 (18:37):
Japanese studios already sensitive to piracy had
had enough.
In 2021, tohye Tonikatsu, twoof Japan's major film houses,
filed criminal charges againstthree individuals behind these
channels.
Speaker 1 (18:54):
Yes, criminal, not just civil, claims for damages.
In 2022, the court issued theharshest piracy penalty in
Japanese film history 500million yen in damages, that's
over 3,500,000 USD per person.
Speaker 3 (19:13):
To put it in perspective, they didn't upload
full movies, but the court ruledthat these digest edits
undermine the value of theoriginal work, dissuade people
from watching the full film anddeprive studios of revenue and
control.
Speaker 1 (19:30):
And unlike Hollywood, where fair use often gives room
for criticism or commentary,Japan's copyright law is strict.
If you're using copyrightedcontent, you'd better have
permission or prepare to emptyyour wallet.
Speaker 3 (19:46):
And after the ruling, fast movie uploads disappeared.
Almost overnight, youtubestarted flagging these formats
aggressively.
Film distributors across Asiauploaded the court's decision.
Speaker 1 (20:03):
And critics Mixed reactions.
Some called the penaltyexcessive.
Others said it was about timedigital piracy was treated like
the industrial theft.
It really is.
Speaker 3 (20:13):
It also raised a cultural question.
In a world where short formcontent is the norm, what does
it mean to own a narrative?
When does summarizing becomestealing?
Speaker 1 (20:24):
Wall alert.
The law's opinion is clear.
Clip it, narrate it and profitfrom it.
Without a license, you might bestarring in your own courtroom
drama.
Speaker 3 (20:34):
The lesson from Japan .
Fast movies make for fastlawsuits, and justice moves just
as quickly when studios wanttheir cut.
This begins in Seoul 2020.
The world is mid-pandemic.
A Korean film titled Alivedrops on Netflix the premise A
gamer trapped in his apartmentduring a zombie outbreak,
(20:58):
clinging to Wi-Fi and hope.
It's tense, stylish and soontrending across borders.
Speaker 1 (21:05):
Now jump cut to Los Angeles.
The Hollywood Innovation Group,an American company, had
already acquired the rights toadapt the exact same screenplay
into an English language filmthey made alone, which also came
out in 2020.
Speaker 3 (21:19):
Here's the issue.
Netflix, which had the globaldistribution rights to Alive,
dubbed the Korean film intoEnglish and released it
internationally.
Suddenly Alone wasn't the edgyexclusive remake.
It was a film that looked likea copy.
Speaker 1 (21:38):
Except it wasn't.
Higg sued Netflix, claimingthat their English dub of Alive
infringed on Higg's exclusiveright to create the English
language adaptation exclusiveright to create the English
language adaptation.
Speaker 3 (21:55):
The heart of the case , whether dubbing a foreign
language film into Englishconstitutes creating a new
derivative work or whether it'sjust another form of
distributing the original.
Speaker 1 (22:04):
Netflix argued we license the full rights from the
Korean producers, including allaudiovisual formats.
Dubbing that's distribution,not adaptation.
Speaker 3 (22:16):
It is said not so fast.
In their view, any version inEnglish, even a dub, failed
under their exclusive adaptationcontract.
Speaker 1 (22:25):
The lawsuit made waves.
It exposed a tricky fault linein IP contracts, especially in
the streaming age, because oncefilms go, global rights get
sliced and diced by language,territory, format and sometimes,
assumption.
Speaker 3 (22:42):
We don't have a public judgment.
Most signs point to a quietdismissal or settlement, but the
industry took note.
Speaker 1 (22:51):
Now studios and streamers are drafting much
tighter language around dubbingrights.
Acquired dismissal orsettlement.
But the industry took note.
Now studios and streamers aredrafting much tighter language
around dubbing rights.
English version can mean manythings Voiceover, subtitles,
full remakes.
You better spell it out.
Speaker 3 (23:04):
And for international filmmakers.
There is a growing awarenessthat global reach means global
risk.
What plays in soul can sparklawsuits in LA.
Speaker 1 (23:16):
Moral of the story when it comes to language rights
, clarity isn't just kind, it'scritical.
Speaker 3 (23:21):
Especially when zombies are involved.
Speaker 1 (23:24):
Copyright.
Doesn't sleep, not even in anapocalypse.
Speaker 3 (23:29):
So what did we just witness?
Eight IP battles, each one adifferent genre a superhero
contract thriller, a NollywoodParasite courtroom drama, a
blockchain noir starring QuentinTarantino, an AI identity
horror flick out of Buenos Aires, a German privacy procedural, a
Beijing art house debate aboutmachine-made creativity, a
(23:50):
Japanese short-form tragedy anda zombie language.
Misunderstanding with globaldistribution rights.
Speaker 1 (23:57):
Honestly, I'd binge that anthology.
Speaker 3 (24:01):
Each case brought its own tension, its own stakes,
its own sense of who owns whatand who gets to tell the story.
Because in the end, that's whatIP law in film is really about
Control over the narrative onand off the screen.
Speaker 1 (24:19):
And that control is getting harder to define.
Streaming blurred the linesbetween premieres and piracy, ai
blurred the lines betweencreator and tool, and global
deals made local contracts feelwell, not quite local anymore.
Speaker 3 (24:33):
We saw stars holding studios accountable, we saw
platforms facing lawsuits acrossborders, and we saw judges
redefining what a poster, avoice or a dub even means in the
digital age.
Speaker 1 (24:50):
And still, through all the courtroom monologues and
legal plot twists, one themestayed in focus the law might be
old, but it's not static.
It adapts, it rewrites,sometimes it even improvises.
Speaker 3 (25:08):
And creators.
They're not just making films.
They're navigating contracts,asserting rights, protecting
identities and sometimesaccidentally launching new legal
frontiers with every release.
Speaker 1 (25:24):
So if you're in film and still treating your IP like
background noise, cue dramaticlighting because you're in the
wrong genre.
Treating your IP likebackground noise, cue dramatic
lighting Because you're in thewrong genre, what?
Speaker 3 (25:36):
today's cases show us is that the future of film
isn't just about pixels orplatforms.
It's about power the power toown, to license, to remix and to
resist being remixed withoutpermission.
Speaker 1 (25:52):
And if you're a fan, you're not off the hook either.
You can shape what gets made bywhat you stream, what you share
and, yes, what you fast forwardthrough on YouTube.
Speaker 3 (25:58):
So, whether you're a lawyer, a filmmaker, an actor or
just someone who really loves agood closing credit sequence,
remember every story you lovelives inside a legal framework.
Speaker 1 (26:11):
Sometimes a brilliant one, sometimes a broken one,
but always one worth readingbetween the lines.
Speaker 3 (26:18):
That's it from us today.
We hope this episode gave you anew lens on the films you love
and the rise behind them.
Speaker 1 (26:25):
And if you ever hear someone say it's just a movie,
tell them to check the docket.
Speaker 3 (26:29):
This has been Intangiblia, where IP contracts
and creativity get theirspotlight.
Speaker 1 (26:35):
And where the credit's my role, but the rights
.
Speaker 3 (26:40):
Never fade to black.
Speaker 2 (26:45):
Thank you for listening to Intangiblia, the
podcast of Intangible Lawplaying talk about intellectual
property.
Did you like what we talkedtoday?
Please share with your network.
Do you want to learn more aboutintellectual property?
Subscribe now on your favoritepodcast player.
Follow us on Instagram,facebook, linkedin and Twitter.
(27:05):
Visit our websitewwwintangibliacom.
Copyright Leticia Caminero 2020.
All rights reserved.
This podcast is provided forinformation purposes only.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.