Movie studios have been making serious money from AI slop on YouTube

Engadget - Mar 31st, 2025

Major movie studios have been profiting from AI-generated fake movie trailers on YouTube, according to a report by Deadline. These studios, instead of enforcing copyright violations, reached an agreement with YouTube to receive ad revenue from such videos. However, following the exposure of this practice, YouTube has discontinued ad revenue for these videos, affecting channels like Screen Culture, which has produced over 1,800 videos and amassed 1.4 million subscribers. The decision has prompted backlash from creators, such as KH Studio, who argue their intent was to explore creative possibilities, not to mislead viewers.

The proliferation of AI-generated trailers has raised concerns about brand dilution and consumer confusion, as illustrated by a fake Superman reboot trailer deceiving French national television. The actors union SAG-AFTRA has criticized the practice as a "race to the bottom." With billions of views accumulated by these fake trailers, the financial impact on studios and creators is significant, though exact figures remain undisclosed. The move by YouTube to demonetize such content marks a shift in the platform's approach, potentially ending the lucrative but controversial revenue stream for both studios and content creators.

James Gunn Ai Generated Content You Tube Fake Movie Trailers Hollywood Studios Sag Aftra Screen Culture Kh Studio

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

5.4

Moderately Fair

Read with skepticism

The article addresses a timely and controversial topic involving AI-generated content in the entertainment industry, which holds significant public interest. It effectively highlights the issue's relevance to current debates on technology, copyright, and media consumption. However, the article's accuracy and source quality are limited by a lack of detailed evidence and perspectives from key stakeholders, such as movie studios and YouTube. While it presents a clear narrative and engages readers with specific examples, the story would benefit from a more balanced presentation of viewpoints and a deeper exploration of the underlying agreements and implications. Overall, the article raises important questions and contributes to ongoing discussions, but it requires more thorough reporting and verification to enhance its credibility and impact.

Accuracy

The article makes several factual claims, such as the increase in AI-generated fake movie trailers on YouTube and the involvement of major movie studios in profiting from these videos. While it references a report by Deadline, it does not provide specific details or confirmations about the agreements between studios and YouTube, which are crucial for verifying the claims. The mention of a specific fake trailer for a Superman reboot that fooled French national television is presented without corroborating evidence or direct quotes from involved parties, such as the television station or James Gunn. The lack of precise monetary figures and the generalization about billions of views also weaken the article's factual precision. Overall, while the story aligns with some known industry trends, it lacks the depth and specificity needed for full verification.

Balance

The article primarily focuses on the negative aspects of AI-generated trailers, such as brand dilution and the studios' short-sightedness. It includes a critical perspective from SAG-AFTRA, describing the situation as a 'race to the bottom,' but it does not provide a balanced view by exploring potential benefits or the studios' rationale for their decisions. The piece includes a statement from the founder of KH Studio, which adds some balance by presenting a creator's perspective, but it lacks input from the studios or YouTube, which would offer a more comprehensive view of the situation. The article could benefit from a wider range of perspectives, including those of industry experts or legal analysts.

Clarity

The article is generally clear in its presentation of the issue, using straightforward language to describe the situation with AI-generated trailers. It effectively conveys the main points and uses specific examples, such as the Superman reboot trailer, to illustrate its claims. However, the article could benefit from a more structured presentation, as it jumps between different aspects of the story, such as the studios' motivations, YouTube's actions, and the creators' perspectives, without clear transitions. A more organized flow would enhance the reader's understanding and retention of the information.

Source quality

The article cites Deadline as a source for its main claims, which is a reputable industry publication. However, it does not provide direct quotes or detailed information from Deadline's report, limiting the reader's ability to assess the reliability of the claims. Additionally, the piece lacks input from primary sources such as the movie studios, YouTube, or the creators of the fake trailers, which would enhance the credibility and depth of the reporting. The reliance on a single secondary source without additional corroboration weakens the overall source quality.

Transparency

The article does not clearly disclose the methodology used to gather its information, nor does it provide context about how the agreements between studios and YouTube were discovered or verified. It leaves readers with questions about the basis for its claims and the potential biases of the sources. The lack of detailed attribution for the claims made, particularly regarding the financial aspects and the studios' motivations, affects the transparency of the piece. Providing more background on the sources and how the information was obtained would improve the article's transparency.