June 15, 2025 • 31 mins
Disney and Universal just opened Hollywood’s first heavyweight copyright war against Midjourney, arguing the AI was trained on “countless stolen works.” Philip and Scott debate the case and what it means if your park’s creative team. Then Disney drops a fresh study valuing its U.S. parks at nearly $67 billion and 400,000 jobs, a powerful flex to hedge against future political turmoil. Listen to weekly BONUS episodes on our Patreon.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (00:01):
From our studios in Los Angeles and Tampa. This is
green tagt Theme Park in thirty. I'm Philip and I'm
joined as always by my co host Scott Swinson of
Scott Swinson Creative Development. On Green Tag, we break down
the week's top news in theme parks and explain why
it matters to professionals. And this week we're gonna be
talking about how Disney is the first to join with
(00:22):
other companies in the suit against AI, the first like
massive AI suit.
Speaker 1 (00:26):
It's very exciting.
Speaker 3 (00:27):
Yes, yes, well it's I mean, it's exciting, it's inevitable,
and you know, these are these are the kinds of
things that that have to be sorted through because again
I don't I don't think. I don't think either of
us are going to say we're gonna be AI bashing
here too much. But the idea is we have to
set these ground rules. We have to figure out where
the where the lines are and where the marks are.
Speaker 1 (00:50):
Oh speak for yourself. I'm I'm okay.
Speaker 3 (00:52):
I brought my AI bashing toolkit, Phi Phillips going to
AI bash and I'm going to keep moving forward in
the world.
Speaker 1 (00:59):
So fine, fine, okay, Scot Okay, so.
Speaker 3 (01:04):
The gloves are off, we've already started. Okay, this this
sounds like more like an unhinged actually, but anyway, all right, yeah,
so go ahead, Phlip, you can set the tone for
this thing.
Speaker 2 (01:13):
I will set the tone. I'm going to read excerpts
here from the NPR article. It says, in a first
of its kind lawsuit, entertainment companies Disney and Universal are
suing AI firm mid Journey for copyright infringement. The one
hundred and ten page lawsuit, followed Wednesday in the US
District Court in Los Angeles includes detailed appendances illustrating the
(01:33):
plaintiffs' claims with visual examples and alleges that mid Journey
stole countless copyright works to train its AI engine in
the creation of age generated images. Many companies have gone
after AI firms or copyright infringement, such as New York Times,
Sony Music Group, and et cetera, et cetera. This is
the first time major Hollywood players have joined the fight
against the AI landscape.
Speaker 1 (01:54):
So that's that's the gist of it.
Speaker 2 (01:57):
I read in a different article that they're the damages
are seeking is one hundred and fifty thousand dollars per infringement,
and so that would be you know, billions and billions
and billions.
Speaker 1 (02:08):
So my hot take and then I'm going to get.
Speaker 2 (02:12):
I'll let Scott give the more nuanced take, probably my
take here. First disclosure, neither Scott nor I are attorneys.
We do not practice law in any states whatever. We're
not financial advisors either, So take all those things as disclosures. However,
(02:32):
I don't see any way in which this is not infringement,
Like it's clear copyright infringement, Like you look at the
examples and you can look at how you can create
an exact copy in mid journey of Mickey and I
have been saying this since the AI started with this.
It is clear cop right infringement. It's clearly taking content.
But at the same time, the genies out of the bottle,
like the horse has left the stable, like it's gone.
(02:53):
I don't think that there is realistically a way to
go back, because we've kind of we've let this loose
and we've let it happen. And I think that the
move by these companies is going to be to continue
to appeal and to drag it out in court in
hopes that they can just delay these because I mean,
(03:13):
I mean, depending on what the what the amount esileians
it being. I mean, some of these companies are large
enough that they could pay the fines and still be fine.
I mean, even if it's ten billion, anthropic and open
AI would be able to handle that. So but I
think these types of suits are absolutely essential because we
need ground rules for how AI is going to operate,
(03:36):
and they have ground rules in other countries. It's really
just America where it's it's the it's the wild West here.
So I understand the technical, the technological argument from folks
where if you put any sort of guardrails around it,
it's going to inhibit the expansion of AI, which is
going to put us behind other countries. But I would
push back against that in that. You know, again, we
(03:57):
generally try to put guardrails around things that are just
that are relatively unsafe or lead at theft, whatever. But
in a way though, I do kind of think it's
it's kind of gone beyond. I think now it's really
just us trying to come up with rules as to
how you're going to monetize it. Right, if you are
using Mickey's image to create something on your own then, Mont,
I think that's what we're gonna have to come at
(04:18):
it from the from the from the I guess, to
the back end, or from a different angle where basically
you're gonna have to look at it at the end.
Use case, if you have a theme park that is
using mid journey, you know, to create something they are monetizing,
I think that's when you're going to have to come out.
I don't think you're gonna be able to stop anything.
You're just kind to come at it from attacking, from
(04:38):
going at it where people are making money down down
long stream. So if people are selling merchandise that is,
you know whatever. I think that's what we're gonna have
to come at it. I think it's there's no way
to stop it now anyway.
Speaker 3 (04:49):
Okay, Scott, Well, so first of all, again I want
to stress something that Philip just said. Neither of us
are lawyers. But in the in the little bit that
I've read about this suit, it says that they are
going after them for utilizing copywritten imaging imagery to train
the AI. Correct Yeah, train the AI. So they're not
(05:10):
going after the fact that they are duplicating copywritten imagery.
What they are going after is the fact that they're
using copywritten imagery to train the AI is that the
way you understand it, because you've you've doubbled into this
much more than I have.
Speaker 2 (05:23):
Yeah, the way I understand it is that that's what
they're saying they're using to train it, and their proof that.
The way they're proving this is by saying that you
can go into mid journey and ask it for prompts
and it will create exact replicas basically, So that's the
way they're proving it is. They're proving it by saying
you're doing this, And I guess my point is they're
definitely gonna win, but it's not gonna do anything, or
(05:46):
maybe they're not, But you know what I mean, It's like,
what's the point They've already trained it?
Speaker 3 (05:50):
But I guess I guess my point is, are we
talking about using copywritten images as inspiration or are we
use it talking about replicating copywritten images, because replicating copywritten images, yes,
is copyright infringement. However, there's an entire market out there
of things called fan art. People in when they go
into educational services, when they go into universities, they are
(06:13):
utilizing copywritten images all the time. I know fifteen people
who I can get I can get on speed dial
that can give you a that can sit down and draw,
freehand from memory a perfect image of Mickey Mouse, simply
because they've been inspired by Mickey Mouse. So I guess
that's where I think this is a slippery slope. You know,
(06:37):
and don't misunderstand me. I am not saying that you
should be able to use AI to create an image
that is identical to something that is copywritten.
Speaker 2 (06:45):
You know.
Speaker 3 (06:45):
There's it goes back to the basics that I always understood.
It's like, you know, what is it sixty percent difference
something like that, so that it becomes something new, It
becomes an original work of parity. Well, not necessarily. Parody
does not have to be sixty percent. Parody can be
less as long as it is judged a parody. However,
if you are inspired by something, you know, I can't
(07:06):
all of a sudden take Mickey Mouse, draw him exactly
the same way, only change the shape of his tail,
call him, you know, Ricky rat and get away with it. No,
because it's not a sixty percent difference. But what the
lawsuit what I'm looking at with the lawsuit is that
they are going after them for using images to train
their AI. Yeah, that's where I have That's where I
(07:27):
raise question. And again I am neither a lawyer nor
am I an expert on AI, so I can't I
can't really come at this with a strong arsenal of
reasons for it. But if they're training AI, how is
that any different from you, Philip, going to animation school
and studying case studies of you know, Mickey Mouse, Frozen whatever.
(07:53):
You're being inspired by those things. You are being in
essence trained by existing imagery. Help me understand how that's different.
Speaker 1 (08:02):
Yeah, I think that this is. I mean, that's probably
why it's a suit.
Speaker 2 (08:10):
Is it's going to have to That's what I mean
when we say we're gonna have to have ground rules, right,
because I think that what you're basically saying is humans
get educated, and part of that education is learning from
previous masters in any art form.
Speaker 3 (08:27):
Correct.
Speaker 2 (08:28):
And even you know, when I did writing, you know,
like I you know, I think every writer has phases
where you're kind of writing like other people and then
and then you find your own voice, correct, I think,
And I think like that's the key is the human
creating its own voice. And I think that's kind of
what again for humans, that's what that's how you know,
(08:48):
when when you make your own voice, you know, like
I think it's like it's fine to study other people's work, right,
and then when you make your own voice and that's
what you put out there, and then that's that's yours,
it's it's your creation.
Speaker 3 (08:58):
Right.
Speaker 2 (08:58):
So I think, though, where we need to set the
ground rules is exactly in this debate, where's the line?
Because AI is not a human and in this case,
you are quite literally downloading material that you don't have
rights to and giving it into a thing that then
you are selling. So like that's the key here is
that they're selling mid Journey and they're selling basically the
(09:21):
ability to copy precisely somebody else's work.
Speaker 3 (09:26):
The ability to But like I said, that ability exists
right now. I have, like I said, fifteen people in
my phone bank who could draw Mickey Mouse. They could
duplicate it to the nth degree, and that would be
illegal because they duplicated to the nth degree. But that's
not what the lawsuit is saying. The lawsuit is about
training the AI and the reason these people can do
(09:47):
This is because they have been trained by looking at
the copy written material over and over and over again.
And you yourself, you know, you, yourself, Philip have told
me that AI only gives you what you ask for,
so you know, it does it quickly. It helps you
find the stuff that you need. But if you, as
(10:09):
the human being, as the human operator, don't input the
right thing, it ain't gonna find it for you. So
you know, you say it's not human, which is true.
It is not. It is not sentient, at least not yet.
We'll see. I've seen, you know, the horror films or
the sci fi films. But you know, when with a
lawsuit where it says and again, let me finish my
(10:32):
point first, when the lawsuit says you are using copywritten
information and copywritten imagery and copywritten data basically to train
your AI. That's no different than going to university and
doing case studies. Yeah. The difference is it does it
quicker and it can retain it longer. And that's why
(10:52):
we have to find these these What these guardrails are?
You know you mentioned that there were guardrails in other countries.
What are those guardrails?
Speaker 2 (10:59):
Do you know? I don't know Yeah, so I think
this is this is exactly. It's a little bit like
both of us are not attorneys, but we're trying to
argue this thing. So I think we've already but what.
Speaker 3 (11:11):
We're doing is we're arguing it based on our on
our understanding, on our current understanding of what the question is,
what the lawsuit is, and what the actual power of
AI is.
Speaker 2 (11:21):
Yeah, and I think all this I think to bring
it back to before I answer your question directly, I
just wanted to set the context. Like, I think the
reason we're talking about this on the show is because
these are the types of like I think stickiness that
you were going to get into all of us are,
especially if theme park operators, script writers, all this kind
of stuff, because we're all have access to these tools, right,
And we've talked about previously how Disney already got into
(11:43):
some hot water for putting that AI artwork. I mean
it's out in public view, right, not just using it
for mockups and putting it out into a finished attraction.
And so I think that's why we're talking about this,
is that it does get sticky because you can I mean,
you really can just go into Majory and say, Mickey
Mouse smoking a cigarett at you know whatever, and it
gives you the exact copy of Mickey swoggy, I mean,
(12:03):
does it.
Speaker 1 (12:03):
To Scott's point, it's up to the human to put in.
Speaker 2 (12:07):
But but to their point, they're like, well, it's allowing
people to spit out exact copyright infringement things. And you're like, well,
but then that's I think my point is there's no
way to catch I think my point is it's done with,
it's already. This is probably gonna settle or it's going
to be dragged through courts or whatever, because there's no
way to undo it. Right, So, like my point would
be just relying on the downstream thing, like you know,
(12:31):
make sure that humans are not making and monetizing corporate
and material. That's going to be my thing because that
we can control. You can go to a store and
you can take down you know whatever, if it's an
exact coprate in fresher, that's going to be That's why.
I But but to your point about the privacy, So
this has been a big sticking point in the tech
community because you know, there's data privacy protection laws in
(12:56):
other countries that we don't have and I think Europe
is probably the strongest. That the UK and you're in
the EU have data privacy protections, and a lot of
that data data privacy protections does relate to AI and
especially like using material from children, right, like like children
their data and their images and all that to I
(13:17):
mean that a lot of that is protected, so it's
not allowed to be used and input into this.
Speaker 1 (13:21):
And I think.
Speaker 2 (13:23):
A lot of the tech companies are like, well, that
is inhibiting our ability because it's whatever and and but you.
Speaker 1 (13:30):
Know, the the.
Speaker 2 (13:32):
Their laws there, they also have stronger protections on what
data is allowed to be used. And basically their argument
is like, you know, we age gate tobacco, we age
get alcohol, we age get all this. So we're not
going to allow like children's data to be used for anything,
for any of this stuff, and we're going to prohibit
what's going to be allowed to be sold to them
and their access to certain uh social media materials because
(13:53):
we've deemed it to be dangerous.
Speaker 3 (13:55):
We're talking about danger versus copyright. First off, yeah, so
you're you're giving two different examples. First off. Secondly, you know,
I want to say right up front, I am not
at all in favor of companies being able to utilize
copywritten material as their own to generate revenue. That is
(14:15):
not that, but that's the end user. That's the end result. Ye,
and your example of Mickey smoking a cigarette, Yes, you
can get an AI to do that. Or I could
call up the fifteen people on my speed dial and say, hey,
could you drive me a picture of Mickey mouse string
is smoking a cigarette. Both of them are wrong. It's
not the training. But I will tell you from my perspective,
(14:37):
and I'm guessing here again not a lawyer, I'm guessing
that the reason they're going after training versus end is
because if they can stop it further upstream, if they
can put the the the kibosh on it further upstream,
they don't have to go after every single individual element
that has been utilized illegally, illegally even by our current laws.
(15:01):
If I put something out there that is copywritten, whether
it was AI generated or not, then it's still illegal,
but it's much easier to go after and more economical
to go after the you can't use it to train.
Speaker 2 (15:17):
But just a quick point to add context. You are
completely right, and just add context on that. There are
some models that stop it at that point. Actually, so
there are some models that when the user says, you know,
give me Mickey smoke a cigarette, it will actually reply
to you and be like, I can't do that because
you know, this is a copyrighted material and I can't
do that. And so I can give you a parody,
(15:40):
or you can give me, I can give you something
that is similar, you know, but able. Actually the model
actually push back. And actually I experienced this when I
was trying to make thumbnails for our show for Green
Tag or I you know, when I'm like, give me,
you know, the this is the show. It's about this
thing with comcasts, and give me the comcast, you know,
(16:00):
the comcast you know, Earth with whatever, and you know,
and it will reply back, we can't do that because
that's copyrighted image. But we can do a generic ball
of the earth and then you you know, and do
these things. So I think so there is precedent for
like for its stopping the user from being able to
generate a coprighting thing.
Speaker 1 (16:19):
So just that adding that context, and.
Speaker 3 (16:21):
I think and I think that's important, and I think
that you know, if if there are certain AI generation
programs that do that, kudos to them. I think that's great,
but I just think it is the part. I think
part of the reason that this is so slippery and
such a quagmire is because the only thing, I mean,
the only difference between being able to generate a mickey
(16:45):
smoking a cigarette is speed.
Speaker 1 (16:48):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (16:49):
You know, there are artists who have studied copywritten material
their entire careers, and because of that, they can sit
down and create it and create something that is copyright infringement.
With AI they can do exactly the same thing, only
in a fraction of a second.
Speaker 2 (17:06):
Yeah, and anyone. It opens up the accessibility to a
much wider audience. You don't have to hire the artist
to do.
Speaker 3 (17:12):
It, which makes it really, really difficult for them to
track down every single solitary infringement of said copyright.
Speaker 1 (17:20):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (17:21):
So you know, I I know it sounded like Philip
and I were arguing. Really not in the end result.
The end result is we don't want copywritten material. As
a writer, I don't want somebody to say, uh, generate
a show in the style of Scott Swinson. You know
nothing that we have a whole lot to go on.
I don't know, I don't think, but you know, and
(17:42):
take take money away from me. I don't want that
to happen. I get that, But I think it is
a very tricky topic because this is this is something
you know. It kind of goes back to a session
that that I attended somewhere where was I oh riad
where they said, you know AI AI is here. AI
(18:05):
is not going to replace artists. It's going to replace
artists that aren't afraid, that are too afraid to use it.
So I think that we have to think about this
in shades of gray as opposed to its right or
it's wrong. I think we have to look at this
in how is this stuff being used? And again, mandating
morality is really tricky. I understand that, but it's something
(18:29):
that we're going to have to find out where where
those boundaries are, where those guardrails are legally, where that
all stands. But I think it is I think it
is going to be difficult to prove that it is
wrong to not train a brain, whether it is an
AI brain or a human brain, by using copywritten material.
(18:51):
I think that is where we're going to write into
some trickiness. And if I were a lawyer and if
I were trying to defend the AI companies. That's where
I would go, and we need to find a way
around that or to disprove that in some way, shape
or form, or we're going to come up with situations where,
for example, I do a lot of presentations at trade
shows around the world. I would no longer be able
(19:13):
to do case studies because in a case study we
are using copywritten material to educate.
Speaker 2 (19:25):
Well, we have a few other stories still we got
to get to or at least talk about in some fashion.
They're all Disney related. We've tried to put this all together.
Speaker 3 (19:35):
So there was.
Speaker 2 (19:37):
A news announcement that came out from Disney this week.
Of course, this ip you know lawsuit was in the mainstream,
but in our theme park world, they're Disney released out study.
It says the highlight here is that the old Disney
World and Disneyland theme parks are worth nearly sixty seven
billion a year to the US economy and support more
(19:59):
than for hundred thousand jobs a constant country, according to
a newly released study. Several outlets picked this up and
it's from what I heard, you know that Disney's done
this before, and of course we had the themed index
and blah blah, you know, but really what for the
first time, they're trying to combine it and show like
a nationwide view, and then they also break it down
(20:20):
according to the impact for the California and Orlando regions.
And what I was trying to figure out is like why,
I mean, like what I mean, I feel like everybody,
for the most I think, yeah, I think most people
if you just ask them, like do you think Disney
is a big employer that has big impact, I think
most people would say yeah, probably, and especially the people
(20:43):
in the communities, especially in in for Walt Disney World.
I mean that's like, you know, everyone knows someone who's
worked or has worked at Disney or.
Speaker 1 (20:53):
I mean, it's like it's a huge part. So I
I'm not sure if like is this them trying to.
Speaker 2 (21:04):
Maybe store up political capital, you know, like where they're
trying to like get this ready so they can go
and have some sort of tool, you know, in the
toolkit and in case there's a political backlash for something
like or you know, DeSantis comes back and says we're
trying to slow down this expansion or this or the whatever,
and they can say, well, we can prove here that
(21:26):
we impact I don't know.
Speaker 3 (21:28):
What do you think, Scott Well Between I think I
think you're absolutely right when you think that this is
politically motivated. And again I don't know, I don't know
they or not, but it appears as though that well,
first off, in the United States, there are two key
locations are in the crosshairs or in the they're in
(21:51):
the focus, let's put it this way, of the current administration.
So whether it is whether it is dysantis here in
Florida or whether it is keeping that laser focus on California,
because again it could be a huge threat to the
current administration for the United States. I think Disney is
just basically saying you probably don't want to mess with us,
because we make a big impact financially, we are, we
(22:15):
are as big a player as some of the you know,
other billionaires or billionaire based companies that are that could
potentially from a political standpoint, attack US. Yeah, and I
think there, yes, it is a bit of a muscle flex,
Absolutely a bit of a muscle flex. I also think
that with the new Abu Dhabi announcement, they are also
(22:39):
trying to probably to a certain extent, counteract some of
the negative responses in the US to to doing a
park in Abu Dhabi, and we've had great deals of
the discussion about that. We're not going to go into that,
but I think they may be coming back to say
a little bit of guys, we're really important here too,
you know. And I also think and maybe it's I
(23:05):
don't know, maybe it's just because I'm in Florida, but
I also think it is a way to remind people that,
you know, epic epic may be all of the headlines
right now, but we're Disney. We're still here, we still
have power, we're still viable, We're still making a great
contribution because I will I will tell you you know, Orlando.
(23:26):
Orlando was a nothing town prior to Disney. And it's
not just the it's not just the revenue. It's the
indirect revenue, the indirect profit that Disney generates between travel, hotels, restaurants,
what what i'll call international drive attractions. You know, if
(23:47):
it if it weren't for the big theme parks, so
much of that, so much of those jobs wouldn't be there.
Speaker 2 (23:56):
Yeah, they did actually break it down to your point.
So forty point three billion for Florida is what they're
is what they're claiming. And then they said Disney's operations
in Florida created or supported two hundred and sixty three
thousand jobs, like two hundred and six that that's I mean,
(24:17):
it's a lot of jobs in Florida.
Speaker 3 (24:18):
It's a lot of jobs in Florida. And I will,
I will even go so far as to say they're
not all in orlandoa Tampa has a call center. Tampa
has a Disney call center. So and we're you know,
anywhere from an hour and a half to four hours
from Orlando, depending on what I four is doing. Uh,
but you know, so, Yeah, it's I think it's partially
(24:38):
a muscle flex. I think it's partially a reminder that,
you know, we do contribute a great deal to the
US economy. I think you're right, Philip. I think it
is a potential political hedge hedge. Yeah, and it's I
won't even call it a warning shot. I think it's
I think it's if we're going to talk about let's
let's say this this becomes a political war, or it's
(25:01):
doing it's doing military exercises in a visible location that's
like really remote kind of a thing. Yeah, it's kind
of like saying, hey, guys, you know we still have
and we still contribute to a great deal of the
US economy. Don't come for us because they're also I
wouldn't be surprised if this was followed up with another
(25:23):
report later that goes global and says here's where we
are the rest of the world, so that if the
United States for some reason wants to turn on Disney,
then they can say, great, let's have the largest new
condo community here in Orlando, and we'll pull out and
we'll go to Europe. Yeah, you know, it's it's it's
(25:48):
a flex. I mean, it appears to me as it's
a muscle flex.
Speaker 2 (25:51):
The quote by Josh Tomorrow is is pretty I would say, yeah,
it makes sense if you think about it as a flex,
because his quote is very stern. I mean, he says
in the release it says, Disney defines the theme entertainment
business in America, and our presence is felt across the country.
(26:12):
Our destinations create economies far beyond the gates of our
parks and we and when we invest in the groundbreaking
experiences that only Disney can deliver, growth follows.
Speaker 1 (26:22):
That is like great back forward.
Speaker 2 (26:24):
Yeah, and also it's you know, Disney's usually pretty good
about being a little bit more middle of the road,
you know, acknowledging universal blah blah blah, our partner of partners.
You know, they always use this kind of like where,
but this is kind of like only Disney can deliver
this and where we we define it.
Speaker 1 (26:42):
And I'm like, I mean, it's so.
Speaker 3 (26:45):
What I'm wondering is if there hasn't been either some
leakage that there is going to be some direct attack
on Disney, or whether there already has been but it
just hasn't been made public yet. So Disney decided to
get ahead of it. I don't know, I don't know,
I believe that.
Speaker 2 (27:02):
Yeah, well, speaking of things that were not that are
happening in the shadows.
Speaker 1 (27:08):
So there was a story.
Speaker 2 (27:09):
Too that came out around this time from Hollywood Reporter
that basically is talking about how Hollywood's modern game of
Thrones is that across all across the entertainment industry there
are pitched power struggles quietly being waged for the top
gigs at CIA, Sony Lucasfilm on the course, Disney and
of course, because you know, Eiger needs to find his replacement.
Speaker 1 (27:32):
And remember this whole how it worked last time.
Speaker 2 (27:34):
A lot of people said that he chose, but then
he sabotaged and his whole power struggle. And I guess
there was a retreat recently with the Disney executives and
there are some leaked comments from that retreat who are
basically he is like, you have to be vicious in
order to be able to be in this role effectively.
Is what I gather from the leaked excerpts. Is him
(27:57):
just talking about how you have to really have to
be vicious about it. And so I don't think that
this economic impact. I don't think it really ties into that.
But I do think that there are clearly we don't
have a successor yet, and his time is running out,
and so we like kind of like, come on, yeah.
Speaker 3 (28:17):
Well, and if they are tied together in any way,
I think it kind of reinforces what we're saying. Anyway,
this is really probably the first time in Disney's history
where there's really been opposition.
Speaker 1 (28:29):
You know, Yep, that's true, that's true.
Speaker 2 (28:32):
Yeah, So it's going to be somebody who's strong enough
to fight back against the opposition.
Speaker 1 (28:35):
Yeah, maybe that's what he was.
Speaker 3 (28:37):
It can't be the same, It can't be the same.
You know, everybody loves us. We're gonna be good. And
to be fair, there are people who have said Disney
has always been cut through throat. There are people who
have said, you know, you think it's the happiest place
on earth, that's only for the guests. Now, I also
know many, many, many people who work for Disney who
would say that is not at all the case. They
(28:58):
love it, They drank, who laid, They thoroughly support their company,
and I think that's wonderful.
Speaker 2 (29:05):
I think both are true. As being a former cast member,
I would say both are true.
Speaker 3 (29:08):
Yeah, yeah, but I think it's but I think it's
important to recognize that these two could be conceivably tied
together because it's not the It's not that everybody's gonna
love Disney anymore. And that's the way it has been
for years, especially the theme park. You know, once Disneyland opened,
it became the place everybody wanted to go. And we
(29:31):
were reminded, you know, when it first opened, we were
reminded that every Saturday night when World of Color came
on television. Those of you who are too young to
remember that, you won't even know it. But but we
were reminded over and over again. We were reminded every
time we went to a Disney film, we were reminded
every time we picked up a Disney coloring book that
Disneyland was the place to go. And then while Disney
World opened, which was like, oh, it's not just a
land now, it's a world. And I remember, and I
(29:55):
remember that. I mean, I'm old enough that I remember that.
But now there is pushback. So yeah, you gotta have somebody.
You've got to have a successor who is strong enough,
smart enough and perhaps I don't want to use the
term vicious, but willing, willing to scrap when necessary, and
(30:17):
maybe that's maybe that's what they're saying. I again, I agree.
I wasn't there. I wasn't there. Well, this has been
our our, our Disney Hey, what are they doing right?
And what are they doing that we don't understand? And
this entire show is generated by AI. No, that's not true,
that's not true.
Speaker 1 (30:34):
This is any imagine.
Speaker 3 (30:35):
This is really us and we're really out of time.
We're really out of time. Once again, guys, thank you
so very much for watching. Uh if you watching or listening,
if you would like to join our Unhinged Team, please
do so we get even spicier than we do here
on the show. And uh so you can just you
(30:56):
can just search us and you'll find us. And so,
since we're out of time on behalf of Philip and myself,
this is green tagged theme Park in thirty and we'll
see you next week.
Okay.
Speaker 2 (00:01):
From our studios in Los Angeles and Tampa. This is
green tagt Theme Park in thirty. I'm Philip and I'm
joined as always by my co host Scott Swinson of
Scott Swinson Creative Development. On Green Tag, we break down
the week's top news in theme parks and explain why
it matters to professionals. And this week we're gonna be
talking about how Disney is the first to join with
(00:22):
other companies in the suit against AI, the first like
massive AI suit.
Speaker 1 (00:26):
It's very exciting.
Speaker 3 (00:27):
Yes, yes, well it's I mean, it's exciting, it's inevitable,
and you know, these are these are the kinds of
things that that have to be sorted through because again
I don't I don't think. I don't think either of
us are going to say we're gonna be AI bashing
here too much. But the idea is we have to
set these ground rules. We have to figure out where
the where the lines are and where the marks are.
Speaker 1 (00:50):
Oh speak for yourself. I'm I'm okay.
Speaker 3 (00:52):
I brought my AI bashing toolkit, Phi Phillips going to
AI bash and I'm going to keep moving forward in
the world.
Speaker 1 (00:59):
So fine, fine, okay, Scot Okay, so.
Speaker 3 (01:04):
The gloves are off, we've already started. Okay, this this
sounds like more like an unhinged actually, but anyway, all right, yeah,
so go ahead, Phlip, you can set the tone for
this thing.
Speaker 2 (01:13):
I will set the tone. I'm going to read excerpts
here from the NPR article. It says, in a first
of its kind lawsuit, entertainment companies Disney and Universal are
suing AI firm mid Journey for copyright infringement. The one
hundred and ten page lawsuit, followed Wednesday in the US
District Court in Los Angeles includes detailed appendances illustrating the
(01:33):
plaintiffs' claims with visual examples and alleges that mid Journey
stole countless copyright works to train its AI engine in
the creation of age generated images. Many companies have gone
after AI firms or copyright infringement, such as New York Times,
Sony Music Group, and et cetera, et cetera. This is
the first time major Hollywood players have joined the fight
against the AI landscape.
Speaker 1 (01:54):
So that's that's the gist of it.
Speaker 2 (01:57):
I read in a different article that they're the damages
are seeking is one hundred and fifty thousand dollars per infringement,
and so that would be you know, billions and billions
and billions.
Speaker 1 (02:08):
So my hot take and then I'm going to get.
Speaker 2 (02:12):
I'll let Scott give the more nuanced take, probably my
take here. First disclosure, neither Scott nor I are attorneys.
We do not practice law in any states whatever. We're
not financial advisors either, So take all those things as disclosures. However,
(02:32):
I don't see any way in which this is not infringement,
Like it's clear copyright infringement, Like you look at the
examples and you can look at how you can create
an exact copy in mid journey of Mickey and I
have been saying this since the AI started with this.
It is clear cop right infringement. It's clearly taking content.
But at the same time, the genies out of the bottle,
like the horse has left the stable, like it's gone.
(02:53):
I don't think that there is realistically a way to
go back, because we've kind of we've let this loose
and we've let it happen. And I think that the
move by these companies is going to be to continue
to appeal and to drag it out in court in
hopes that they can just delay these because I mean,
(03:13):
I mean, depending on what the what the amount esileians
it being. I mean, some of these companies are large
enough that they could pay the fines and still be fine.
I mean, even if it's ten billion, anthropic and open
AI would be able to handle that. So but I
think these types of suits are absolutely essential because we
need ground rules for how AI is going to operate,
(03:36):
and they have ground rules in other countries. It's really
just America where it's it's the it's the wild West here.
So I understand the technical, the technological argument from folks
where if you put any sort of guardrails around it,
it's going to inhibit the expansion of AI, which is
going to put us behind other countries. But I would
push back against that in that. You know, again, we
(03:57):
generally try to put guardrails around things that are just
that are relatively unsafe or lead at theft, whatever. But
in a way though, I do kind of think it's
it's kind of gone beyond. I think now it's really
just us trying to come up with rules as to
how you're going to monetize it. Right, if you are
using Mickey's image to create something on your own then, Mont,
I think that's what we're gonna have to come at
(04:18):
it from the from the from the I guess, to
the back end, or from a different angle where basically
you're gonna have to look at it at the end.
Use case, if you have a theme park that is
using mid journey, you know, to create something they are monetizing,
I think that's when you're going to have to come out.
I don't think you're gonna be able to stop anything.
You're just kind to come at it from attacking, from
(04:38):
going at it where people are making money down down
long stream. So if people are selling merchandise that is,
you know whatever. I think that's what we're gonna have
to come at it. I think it's there's no way
to stop it now anyway.
Speaker 3 (04:49):
Okay, Scott, Well, so first of all, again I want
to stress something that Philip just said. Neither of us
are lawyers. But in the in the little bit that
I've read about this suit, it says that they are
going after them for utilizing copywritten imaging imagery to train
the AI. Correct Yeah, train the AI. So they're not
(05:10):
going after the fact that they are duplicating copywritten imagery.
What they are going after is the fact that they're
using copywritten imagery to train the AI is that the
way you understand it, because you've you've doubbled into this
much more than I have.
Speaker 2 (05:23):
Yeah, the way I understand it is that that's what
they're saying they're using to train it, and their proof that.
The way they're proving this is by saying that you
can go into mid journey and ask it for prompts
and it will create exact replicas basically, So that's the
way they're proving it is. They're proving it by saying
you're doing this, And I guess my point is they're
definitely gonna win, but it's not gonna do anything, or
(05:46):
maybe they're not, But you know what I mean, It's like,
what's the point They've already trained it?
Speaker 3 (05:50):
But I guess I guess my point is, are we
talking about using copywritten images as inspiration or are we
use it talking about replicating copywritten images, because replicating copywritten images, yes,
is copyright infringement. However, there's an entire market out there
of things called fan art. People in when they go
into educational services, when they go into universities, they are
(06:13):
utilizing copywritten images all the time. I know fifteen people
who I can get I can get on speed dial
that can give you a that can sit down and draw,
freehand from memory a perfect image of Mickey Mouse, simply
because they've been inspired by Mickey Mouse. So I guess
that's where I think this is a slippery slope. You know,
(06:37):
and don't misunderstand me. I am not saying that you
should be able to use AI to create an image
that is identical to something that is copywritten.
Speaker 2 (06:45):
You know.
Speaker 3 (06:45):
There's it goes back to the basics that I always understood.
It's like, you know, what is it sixty percent difference
something like that, so that it becomes something new, It
becomes an original work of parity. Well, not necessarily. Parody
does not have to be sixty percent. Parody can be
less as long as it is judged a parody. However,
if you are inspired by something, you know, I can't
(07:06):
all of a sudden take Mickey Mouse, draw him exactly
the same way, only change the shape of his tail,
call him, you know, Ricky rat and get away with it. No,
because it's not a sixty percent difference. But what the
lawsuit what I'm looking at with the lawsuit is that
they are going after them for using images to train
their AI. Yeah, that's where I have That's where I
(07:27):
raise question. And again I am neither a lawyer nor
am I an expert on AI, so I can't I
can't really come at this with a strong arsenal of
reasons for it. But if they're training AI, how is
that any different from you, Philip, going to animation school
and studying case studies of you know, Mickey Mouse, Frozen whatever.
(07:53):
You're being inspired by those things. You are being in
essence trained by existing imagery. Help me understand how that's different.
Speaker 1 (08:02):
Yeah, I think that this is. I mean, that's probably
why it's a suit.
Speaker 2 (08:10):
Is it's going to have to That's what I mean
when we say we're gonna have to have ground rules, right,
because I think that what you're basically saying is humans
get educated, and part of that education is learning from
previous masters in any art form.
Speaker 3 (08:27):
Correct.
Speaker 2 (08:28):
And even you know, when I did writing, you know,
like I you know, I think every writer has phases
where you're kind of writing like other people and then
and then you find your own voice, correct, I think,
And I think like that's the key is the human
creating its own voice. And I think that's kind of
what again for humans, that's what that's how you know,
(08:48):
when when you make your own voice, you know, like
I think it's like it's fine to study other people's work, right,
and then when you make your own voice and that's
what you put out there, and then that's that's yours,
it's it's your creation.
Speaker 3 (08:58):
Right.
Speaker 2 (08:58):
So I think, though, where we need to set the
ground rules is exactly in this debate, where's the line?
Because AI is not a human and in this case,
you are quite literally downloading material that you don't have
rights to and giving it into a thing that then
you are selling. So like that's the key here is
that they're selling mid Journey and they're selling basically the
(09:21):
ability to copy precisely somebody else's work.
Speaker 3 (09:26):
The ability to But like I said, that ability exists
right now. I have, like I said, fifteen people in
my phone bank who could draw Mickey Mouse. They could
duplicate it to the nth degree, and that would be
illegal because they duplicated to the nth degree. But that's
not what the lawsuit is saying. The lawsuit is about
training the AI and the reason these people can do
(09:47):
This is because they have been trained by looking at
the copy written material over and over and over again.
And you yourself, you know, you, yourself, Philip have told
me that AI only gives you what you ask for,
so you know, it does it quickly. It helps you
find the stuff that you need. But if you, as
(10:09):
the human being, as the human operator, don't input the
right thing, it ain't gonna find it for you. So
you know, you say it's not human, which is true.
It is not. It is not sentient, at least not yet.
We'll see. I've seen, you know, the horror films or
the sci fi films. But you know, when with a
lawsuit where it says and again, let me finish my
(10:32):
point first, when the lawsuit says you are using copywritten
information and copywritten imagery and copywritten data basically to train
your AI. That's no different than going to university and
doing case studies. Yeah. The difference is it does it
quicker and it can retain it longer. And that's why
(10:52):
we have to find these these What these guardrails are?
You know you mentioned that there were guardrails in other countries.
What are those guardrails?
Speaker 2 (10:59):
Do you know? I don't know Yeah, so I think
this is this is exactly. It's a little bit like
both of us are not attorneys, but we're trying to
argue this thing. So I think we've already but what.
Speaker 3 (11:11):
We're doing is we're arguing it based on our on
our understanding, on our current understanding of what the question is,
what the lawsuit is, and what the actual power of
AI is.
Speaker 2 (11:21):
Yeah, and I think all this I think to bring
it back to before I answer your question directly, I
just wanted to set the context. Like, I think the
reason we're talking about this on the show is because
these are the types of like I think stickiness that
you were going to get into all of us are,
especially if theme park operators, script writers, all this kind
of stuff, because we're all have access to these tools, right,
And we've talked about previously how Disney already got into
(11:43):
some hot water for putting that AI artwork. I mean
it's out in public view, right, not just using it
for mockups and putting it out into a finished attraction.
And so I think that's why we're talking about this,
is that it does get sticky because you can I mean,
you really can just go into Majory and say, Mickey
Mouse smoking a cigarett at you know whatever, and it
gives you the exact copy of Mickey swoggy, I mean,
(12:03):
does it.
Speaker 1 (12:03):
To Scott's point, it's up to the human to put in.
Speaker 2 (12:07):
But but to their point, they're like, well, it's allowing
people to spit out exact copyright infringement things. And you're like, well,
but then that's I think my point is there's no
way to catch I think my point is it's done with,
it's already. This is probably gonna settle or it's going
to be dragged through courts or whatever, because there's no
way to undo it. Right, So, like my point would
be just relying on the downstream thing, like you know,
(12:31):
make sure that humans are not making and monetizing corporate
and material. That's going to be my thing because that
we can control. You can go to a store and
you can take down you know whatever, if it's an
exact coprate in fresher, that's going to be That's why.
I But but to your point about the privacy, So
this has been a big sticking point in the tech
community because you know, there's data privacy protection laws in
(12:56):
other countries that we don't have and I think Europe
is probably the strongest. That the UK and you're in
the EU have data privacy protections, and a lot of
that data data privacy protections does relate to AI and
especially like using material from children, right, like like children
their data and their images and all that to I
(13:17):
mean that a lot of that is protected, so it's
not allowed to be used and input into this.
Speaker 1 (13:21):
And I think.
Speaker 2 (13:23):
A lot of the tech companies are like, well, that
is inhibiting our ability because it's whatever and and but you.
Speaker 1 (13:30):
Know, the the.
Speaker 2 (13:32):
Their laws there, they also have stronger protections on what
data is allowed to be used. And basically their argument
is like, you know, we age gate tobacco, we age
get alcohol, we age get all this. So we're not
going to allow like children's data to be used for anything,
for any of this stuff, and we're going to prohibit
what's going to be allowed to be sold to them
and their access to certain uh social media materials because
(13:53):
we've deemed it to be dangerous.
Speaker 3 (13:55):
We're talking about danger versus copyright. First off, yeah, so
you're you're giving two different examples. First off. Secondly, you know,
I want to say right up front, I am not
at all in favor of companies being able to utilize
copywritten material as their own to generate revenue. That is
(14:15):
not that, but that's the end user. That's the end result. Ye,
and your example of Mickey smoking a cigarette, Yes, you
can get an AI to do that. Or I could
call up the fifteen people on my speed dial and say, hey,
could you drive me a picture of Mickey mouse string
is smoking a cigarette. Both of them are wrong. It's
not the training. But I will tell you from my perspective,
(14:37):
and I'm guessing here again not a lawyer, I'm guessing
that the reason they're going after training versus end is
because if they can stop it further upstream, if they
can put the the the kibosh on it further upstream,
they don't have to go after every single individual element
that has been utilized illegally, illegally even by our current laws.
(15:01):
If I put something out there that is copywritten, whether
it was AI generated or not, then it's still illegal,
but it's much easier to go after and more economical
to go after the you can't use it to train.
Speaker 2 (15:17):
But just a quick point to add context. You are
completely right, and just add context on that. There are
some models that stop it at that point. Actually, so
there are some models that when the user says, you know,
give me Mickey smoke a cigarette, it will actually reply
to you and be like, I can't do that because
you know, this is a copyrighted material and I can't
do that. And so I can give you a parody,
(15:40):
or you can give me, I can give you something
that is similar, you know, but able. Actually the model
actually push back. And actually I experienced this when I
was trying to make thumbnails for our show for Green
Tag or I you know, when I'm like, give me,
you know, the this is the show. It's about this
thing with comcasts, and give me the comcast, you know,
(16:00):
the comcast you know, Earth with whatever, and you know,
and it will reply back, we can't do that because
that's copyrighted image. But we can do a generic ball
of the earth and then you you know, and do
these things. So I think so there is precedent for
like for its stopping the user from being able to
generate a coprighting thing.
Speaker 1 (16:19):
So just that adding that context, and.
Speaker 3 (16:21):
I think and I think that's important, and I think
that you know, if if there are certain AI generation
programs that do that, kudos to them. I think that's great,
but I just think it is the part. I think
part of the reason that this is so slippery and
such a quagmire is because the only thing, I mean,
the only difference between being able to generate a mickey
(16:45):
smoking a cigarette is speed.
Speaker 1 (16:48):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (16:49):
You know, there are artists who have studied copywritten material
their entire careers, and because of that, they can sit
down and create it and create something that is copyright infringement.
With AI they can do exactly the same thing, only
in a fraction of a second.
Speaker 2 (17:06):
Yeah, and anyone. It opens up the accessibility to a
much wider audience. You don't have to hire the artist
to do.
Speaker 3 (17:12):
It, which makes it really, really difficult for them to
track down every single solitary infringement of said copyright.
Speaker 1 (17:20):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (17:21):
So you know, I I know it sounded like Philip
and I were arguing. Really not in the end result.
The end result is we don't want copywritten material. As
a writer, I don't want somebody to say, uh, generate
a show in the style of Scott Swinson. You know
nothing that we have a whole lot to go on.
I don't know, I don't think, but you know, and
(17:42):
take take money away from me. I don't want that
to happen. I get that, But I think it is
a very tricky topic because this is this is something
you know. It kind of goes back to a session
that that I attended somewhere where was I oh riad
where they said, you know AI AI is here. AI
(18:05):
is not going to replace artists. It's going to replace
artists that aren't afraid, that are too afraid to use it.
So I think that we have to think about this
in shades of gray as opposed to its right or
it's wrong. I think we have to look at this
in how is this stuff being used? And again, mandating
morality is really tricky. I understand that, but it's something
(18:29):
that we're going to have to find out where where
those boundaries are, where those guardrails are legally, where that
all stands. But I think it is I think it
is going to be difficult to prove that it is
wrong to not train a brain, whether it is an
AI brain or a human brain, by using copywritten material.
(18:51):
I think that is where we're going to write into
some trickiness. And if I were a lawyer and if
I were trying to defend the AI companies. That's where
I would go, and we need to find a way
around that or to disprove that in some way, shape
or form, or we're going to come up with situations where,
for example, I do a lot of presentations at trade
shows around the world. I would no longer be able
(19:13):
to do case studies because in a case study we
are using copywritten material to educate.
Speaker 2 (19:25):
Well, we have a few other stories still we got
to get to or at least talk about in some fashion.
They're all Disney related. We've tried to put this all together.
Speaker 3 (19:35):
So there was.
Speaker 2 (19:37):
A news announcement that came out from Disney this week.
Of course, this ip you know lawsuit was in the mainstream,
but in our theme park world, they're Disney released out study.
It says the highlight here is that the old Disney
World and Disneyland theme parks are worth nearly sixty seven
billion a year to the US economy and support more
(19:59):
than for hundred thousand jobs a constant country, according to
a newly released study. Several outlets picked this up and
it's from what I heard, you know that Disney's done
this before, and of course we had the themed index
and blah blah, you know, but really what for the
first time, they're trying to combine it and show like
a nationwide view, and then they also break it down
(20:20):
according to the impact for the California and Orlando regions.
And what I was trying to figure out is like why,
I mean, like what I mean, I feel like everybody,
for the most I think, yeah, I think most people
if you just ask them, like do you think Disney
is a big employer that has big impact, I think
most people would say yeah, probably, and especially the people
(20:43):
in the communities, especially in in for Walt Disney World.
I mean that's like, you know, everyone knows someone who's
worked or has worked at Disney or.
Speaker 1 (20:53):
I mean, it's like it's a huge part. So I
I'm not sure if like is this them trying to.
Speaker 2 (21:04):
Maybe store up political capital, you know, like where they're
trying to like get this ready so they can go
and have some sort of tool, you know, in the
toolkit and in case there's a political backlash for something
like or you know, DeSantis comes back and says we're
trying to slow down this expansion or this or the whatever,
and they can say, well, we can prove here that
(21:26):
we impact I don't know.
Speaker 3 (21:28):
What do you think, Scott Well Between I think I
think you're absolutely right when you think that this is
politically motivated. And again I don't know, I don't know
they or not, but it appears as though that well,
first off, in the United States, there are two key
locations are in the crosshairs or in the they're in
(21:51):
the focus, let's put it this way, of the current administration.
So whether it is whether it is dysantis here in
Florida or whether it is keeping that laser focus on California,
because again it could be a huge threat to the
current administration for the United States. I think Disney is
just basically saying you probably don't want to mess with us,
because we make a big impact financially, we are, we
(22:15):
are as big a player as some of the you know,
other billionaires or billionaire based companies that are that could
potentially from a political standpoint, attack US. Yeah, and I
think there, yes, it is a bit of a muscle flex,
Absolutely a bit of a muscle flex. I also think
that with the new Abu Dhabi announcement, they are also
(22:39):
trying to probably to a certain extent, counteract some of
the negative responses in the US to to doing a
park in Abu Dhabi, and we've had great deals of
the discussion about that. We're not going to go into that,
but I think they may be coming back to say
a little bit of guys, we're really important here too,
you know. And I also think and maybe it's I
(23:05):
don't know, maybe it's just because I'm in Florida, but
I also think it is a way to remind people that,
you know, epic epic may be all of the headlines
right now, but we're Disney. We're still here, we still
have power, we're still viable, We're still making a great
contribution because I will I will tell you you know, Orlando.
(23:26):
Orlando was a nothing town prior to Disney. And it's
not just the it's not just the revenue. It's the
indirect revenue, the indirect profit that Disney generates between travel, hotels, restaurants,
what what i'll call international drive attractions. You know, if
(23:47):
it if it weren't for the big theme parks, so
much of that, so much of those jobs wouldn't be there.
Speaker 2 (23:56):
Yeah, they did actually break it down to your point.
So forty point three billion for Florida is what they're
is what they're claiming. And then they said Disney's operations
in Florida created or supported two hundred and sixty three
thousand jobs, like two hundred and six that that's I mean,
(24:17):
it's a lot of jobs in Florida.
Speaker 3 (24:18):
It's a lot of jobs in Florida. And I will,
I will even go so far as to say they're
not all in orlandoa Tampa has a call center. Tampa
has a Disney call center. So and we're you know,
anywhere from an hour and a half to four hours
from Orlando, depending on what I four is doing. Uh,
but you know, so, Yeah, it's I think it's partially
(24:38):
a muscle flex. I think it's partially a reminder that,
you know, we do contribute a great deal to the
US economy. I think you're right, Philip. I think it
is a potential political hedge hedge. Yeah, and it's I
won't even call it a warning shot. I think it's
I think it's if we're going to talk about let's
let's say this this becomes a political war, or it's
(25:01):
doing it's doing military exercises in a visible location that's
like really remote kind of a thing. Yeah, it's kind
of like saying, hey, guys, you know we still have
and we still contribute to a great deal of the
US economy. Don't come for us because they're also I
wouldn't be surprised if this was followed up with another
(25:23):
report later that goes global and says here's where we
are the rest of the world, so that if the
United States for some reason wants to turn on Disney,
then they can say, great, let's have the largest new
condo community here in Orlando, and we'll pull out and
we'll go to Europe. Yeah, you know, it's it's it's
(25:48):
a flex. I mean, it appears to me as it's
a muscle flex.
Speaker 2 (25:51):
The quote by Josh Tomorrow is is pretty I would say, yeah,
it makes sense if you think about it as a flex,
because his quote is very stern. I mean, he says
in the release it says, Disney defines the theme entertainment
business in America, and our presence is felt across the country.
(26:12):
Our destinations create economies far beyond the gates of our
parks and we and when we invest in the groundbreaking
experiences that only Disney can deliver, growth follows.
Speaker 1 (26:22):
That is like great back forward.
Speaker 2 (26:24):
Yeah, and also it's you know, Disney's usually pretty good
about being a little bit more middle of the road,
you know, acknowledging universal blah blah blah, our partner of partners.
You know, they always use this kind of like where,
but this is kind of like only Disney can deliver
this and where we we define it.
Speaker 1 (26:42):
And I'm like, I mean, it's so.
Speaker 3 (26:45):
What I'm wondering is if there hasn't been either some
leakage that there is going to be some direct attack
on Disney, or whether there already has been but it
just hasn't been made public yet. So Disney decided to
get ahead of it. I don't know, I don't know,
I believe that.
Speaker 2 (27:02):
Yeah, well, speaking of things that were not that are
happening in the shadows.
Speaker 1 (27:08):
So there was a story.
Speaker 2 (27:09):
Too that came out around this time from Hollywood Reporter
that basically is talking about how Hollywood's modern game of
Thrones is that across all across the entertainment industry there
are pitched power struggles quietly being waged for the top
gigs at CIA, Sony Lucasfilm on the course, Disney and
of course, because you know, Eiger needs to find his replacement.
Speaker 1 (27:32):
And remember this whole how it worked last time.
Speaker 2 (27:34):
A lot of people said that he chose, but then
he sabotaged and his whole power struggle. And I guess
there was a retreat recently with the Disney executives and
there are some leaked comments from that retreat who are
basically he is like, you have to be vicious in
order to be able to be in this role effectively.
Is what I gather from the leaked excerpts. Is him
(27:57):
just talking about how you have to really have to
be vicious about it. And so I don't think that
this economic impact. I don't think it really ties into that.
But I do think that there are clearly we don't
have a successor yet, and his time is running out,
and so we like kind of like, come on, yeah.
Speaker 3 (28:17):
Well, and if they are tied together in any way,
I think it kind of reinforces what we're saying. Anyway,
this is really probably the first time in Disney's history
where there's really been opposition.
Speaker 1 (28:29):
You know, Yep, that's true, that's true.
Speaker 2 (28:32):
Yeah, So it's going to be somebody who's strong enough
to fight back against the opposition.
Speaker 1 (28:35):
Yeah, maybe that's what he was.
Speaker 3 (28:37):
It can't be the same, It can't be the same.
You know, everybody loves us. We're gonna be good. And
to be fair, there are people who have said Disney
has always been cut through throat. There are people who
have said, you know, you think it's the happiest place
on earth, that's only for the guests. Now, I also
know many, many, many people who work for Disney who
would say that is not at all the case. They
(28:58):
love it, They drank, who laid, They thoroughly support their company,
and I think that's wonderful.
Speaker 2 (29:05):
I think both are true. As being a former cast member,
I would say both are true.
Speaker 3 (29:08):
Yeah, yeah, but I think it's but I think it's
important to recognize that these two could be conceivably tied
together because it's not the It's not that everybody's gonna
love Disney anymore. And that's the way it has been
for years, especially the theme park. You know, once Disneyland opened,
it became the place everybody wanted to go. And we
(29:31):
were reminded, you know, when it first opened, we were
reminded that every Saturday night when World of Color came
on television. Those of you who are too young to
remember that, you won't even know it. But but we
were reminded over and over again. We were reminded every
time we went to a Disney film, we were reminded
every time we picked up a Disney coloring book that
Disneyland was the place to go. And then while Disney
World opened, which was like, oh, it's not just a
land now, it's a world. And I remember, and I
(29:55):
remember that. I mean, I'm old enough that I remember that.
But now there is pushback. So yeah, you gotta have somebody.
You've got to have a successor who is strong enough,
smart enough and perhaps I don't want to use the
term vicious, but willing, willing to scrap when necessary, and
(30:17):
maybe that's maybe that's what they're saying. I again, I agree.
I wasn't there. I wasn't there. Well, this has been
our our, our Disney Hey, what are they doing right?
And what are they doing that we don't understand? And
this entire show is generated by AI. No, that's not true,
that's not true.
Speaker 1 (30:34):
This is any imagine.
Speaker 3 (30:35):
This is really us and we're really out of time.
We're really out of time. Once again, guys, thank you
so very much for watching. Uh if you watching or listening,
if you would like to join our Unhinged Team, please
do so we get even spicier than we do here
on the show. And uh so you can just you
(30:56):
can just search us and you'll find us. And so,
since we're out of time on behalf of Philip and myself,
this is green tagged theme Park in thirty and we'll
see you next week.
Popular Podcasts
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
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
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show. Clay Travis and Buck Sexton tackle the biggest stories in news, politics and current events with intelligence and humor. From the border crisis, to the madness of cancel culture and far-left missteps, Clay and Buck guide listeners through the latest headlines and hot topics with fun and entertaining conversations and opinions.