Disney chief executive Bob Iger is defending the company’s new partnership with OpenAI, which says it will not undervalue human creativity. In a rare television appearance, Iger said in an interview with OpenAI chief Sam Altman that the deal is meant to serve as something of a compromise between acknowledging artists’ work and giving fans new ways to safely and legally interact with Disney’s stories within the company’s walled garden.
Central to the plan is a license and technology agreement that will see a curated number of Disney’s characters and properties brought into the two platforms: ChatGPT and Sora, OpenAI’s app for generating videos. Disney is also investing $1 billion or so in OpenAI to take an equity stake and will use the company’s tools across its business lines, making the media giant a significant customer as well as licensee.
What the OpenAI-Disney licensing deal covers and omits
The integration will feature around 200 characters, props and other creative elements from Disney’s catalogue, the companies said at a Tuesday press event in which each side took care to avoid saying acquisition or merger — experiences that will be rolled out to customers in waves starting in 2026. Think guided prompts, interactive storytelling and fan-safe video snippets constructed within recognizable worlds.
Critically, Disney says the deal does not cover actor likenesses and character voices. That carveout is significant: it helps keep the deal within union rules and existing talent contracts, and averts a potential flashpoint for performers who have agitated for consent and compensation around any digital likenesses.
OpenAI, for its part, has said there is a large appetite for branded experiences, and ChatGPT already serves millions of people. The company has said more than 100 million users, who spend an average of 30 minutes a day on the app, use its service each week — giving Disney plenty of runway to experiment with licensed, high-safety interactions at scale.
Why creators are wary of OpenAI’s Disney partnership
For many writers, artists and performers, generative AI is perceived as an existential threat, supplanting jobs or suppressing pay. Those fears showed up in Hollywood’s latest labor deals: The Writers Guild of America barred studios from naming AI as a writer or tapping AI work for source material; SAG-AFTRA secured consent and compensation protections for digital doubles.
Public sentiment reflects that tension. Studies conducted by nonpartisan groups find that a majority of Americans are more worried than enthusiastic about the effect of A.I. on their lives and jobs. The response when studios take risks has been clear: When a major Marvel series deployed AI-enhanced imagery in its opening titles, the backlash drowned out any creative intent and inspired a broader industry debate.
Iger’s argument is that the OpenAI pact is an additive, not a subtractive one — part of a strategy to siphon fan demand into licensed, brand-safe experiences instead of unlicensed shadow versions clogging the internet. That difference might matter if it reduces sales of knockoffs while placing humans at the heart of story development, character arcs, and visual design.
Legal and licensing questions around AI and Disney
They describe the deal as a paid license for assets used, and Disney maintains tight control over their use. Whether any licensing revenue trickles down meaningfully to individual creators is a matter of contract structures and guild frameworks (which usually deal with residuals, reuse and derivative rights in sometimes fantastical ways).
And, at the same time, courts are still untangling basic issues about training data and outputs. Authors, visual artists and news organizations have filed legal challenges to the way AI models consume copyrighted works and how those models output — or reproduce — copyrighted material. The results will determine where companies place the line between fair use, licensing and infringement.
By selecting a proper license and ring-fencing sensitive material such as voices and likenesses, Disney is expressing a preference for negotiated access rather than scraping. That strategy could provide a template for other rights holders that may wish to connect with fans where they are, without eroding I.P. protections.
The business case for Disney’s AI tools and investment
Iger painted the move as a practical one — if AI-generated experiences are inevitable, Disney wants to be in control of the market rather than its servant. It’s not just the fan engagement potential upside; its internal productivity gains as employees begin to use AI tools: for research, localization, marketing and operations.
Consultancies estimate that generative AI will unlock trillions of dollars in annual value across industries, and media companies are already experimenting with personalization, asset management and rapid prototyping. For a business with global franchises, and big libraries of content, every little efficiency can add up.
What comes next for the OpenAI-Disney rollout and trust
The proof of Iger’s declaration that the deal is “no threat” will ultimately be in implementation. Clear guardrails, auditable consent flows for all talent-adjacent use and robust watermarking and attribution can help build trust. So can transparency around the extent to which AI assets populate consumer experiences, as opposed to human-created originals.
If Disney can use AI to supplement creative work rather than replace it and if licensing fees and efficiencies mean more investment in human-led storytelling, then the company could turn an acrimonious technology into a disciplined capability. If not, brace for more pushback from unions and artists, plus a fresh focus on how AI is regulated in entertainment.
For the moment, though, the word from Burbank is clear: the OpenAI partnership is designed to extend Disney magic under strict controls, not outsource it. Creators, viewers, advertisers and regulators will be watching to see whether the rollout fulfills that promise.
