Disney signs an agreement with OpenAI, and sends Google a cease-and-desist notice over AI - Belgian court rejects copyright claim over High Tides drama

Disney signs an agreement with OpenAI, and sends Google a cease-and-desist notice over AI 

In December, Disney announced an alliance with OpenAI and took legal action against Google over the use of artificial intelligence. 

On 11 December 2025, The Walt Disney Company and OpenAI announced a three-year licensing agreement. This agreement will enable Sora to produce short videos inspired by fans, featuring over 200 characters from Disney, Marvel, Pixar and Star Wars. A selection of these videos will be available on Disney+. Furthermore, ChatGPT Images may use the same intellectual property to create illustrations. However, it excludes the use of real actors’ likenesses or voices, and incorporates 'responsible use' commitments, such as safety controls, respect for rights, and age policies. Subject to final contracts and internal approvals, the project is scheduled to begin in early 2026. Moreover, Disney will become a customer of OpenAI’s APIs to develop new experiences, including on Disney+, and will introduce ChatGPT for its employees. The transaction includes an investment of around €850,000 and the granting of warrants in favour of Disney. 

One day after, on 12 December, Disney sent Google a cease-and-desist letter, accusing the company of copying works from its catalogue on a large scale to train AI models, as well as generating and distributing images and videos featuring its characters without authorisation. Disney requested that Google cease from providing results that reproduce its intellectual property and implement technical measures to prevent further infringements. This includes characters from Star Wars, Pixar, Marvel, and classic films such as The Lion King and The Little Mermaid. In response, Google claims that it uses public internet data to build its models and highlight controls such as Google Extended and YouTube’s Content ID. 

Overall, these moves outline Disney’s recent AI strategy of licensed collaboration with strict rules, alongside active protection of its catalogue against unauthorised uses. 

Belgian court rejects copyright claim over High Tides drama 

The Commercial Court of Ghent, Belgium, has dismissed the copyright infringement claim brought by Flemish writer Piet Baete against the production company Dingie BV regarding the series Knokke Off, which was released internationally under the title High Tides. 

The dispute began when Baete, the author of the crime novel Verzwijg Mij Niet, claimed that Knokke Off was an unauthorised adaptation of his work. The writer argued that, following preliminary discussions with the creative leads of the series about a potential collaboration, the producer released a drama set in the coastal town of Knokke featuring elements similar to his book, such as a focus on wealthy youths and certain subplots. Consequently, he sued for infringement of the adaptation right and the right of communication to the public, and sought an injunction with a penalty of €500 for each future infringement relating to broadcasting or platform availability. However, Dingie BV denied any copying and maintained that the project had been developed independently, and attributed any similarities to common genre tropes and the geographic setting itself. 

The Commercial Court of Ghent (Ondernemingsrechtbank Gent) centered its assessment on whether the series had reused original, protectable elements of the book, rather than mere ideas or genre clichés. The court explained that setting the story in Knokke as an exclusive enclave centered on affluent young people and using motifs such as parties, excess and turbulent relationships are part of the common heritage and are not, in themselves, covered by copyright. Although Baete referred to numerous similarities, the court deemed these to be contextual coincidences and narrative functions since there were no specific identical expressions, such as scenes, dialogue, plot twists or distinctive character configurations, that would support a claim of unauthorised adaptation. 

In addition, the court described Piet Bate's book as a crime mystery, whereas the series is structured as a youth lifestyle drama emphasising personal conflicts and dynamics typical of entertainment aimed at younger audiences. As the works differed in their narrative core, and as there was no concrete evidence that distinctive passages, scenes or character constructions had been copied, the court rejected the claim of infringement. Furthermore, the court noted that, for an unlawful adaptation to exist, it is not sufficient for two works to evoke a similar impression or atmosphere; rather, there must be a recognisable reproduction of creative choices that reflect the personal style of the author. 

Meanwhile, the producer questioned the author's conduct, suggesting an abusive use of the proceedings. However, the court rejected this idea, stating that publicly accusing someone of plagiarism does not automatically constitute bad faith, and that any potential reputational damage should be addressed through the appropriate legal channels, which are separate from the copyright infringement assessment. For all these reasons, the court concluded that there had been no infringement and considered Knokke Off to be an independent creation.