The Owl House Creator Slams Disney’s AI Push

Disney keeps talking up its AI future. Dana Terrace is not here for it. The Owl House creator went public with a blunt message that basically boils down to: if Disney is leaning into gen AI, count her out.

Dana Terrace draws a line

Terrace, who created the fan-favorite animated series The Owl House, lit up social media on November 14, 2025 with this:

'Unsubscribe from Disney+. Pirate Owl House. I don't care. Fuck gen AI.'

- Dana Terrace (@DanaTerrace)

That is a rare sight: a Disney creator telling fans to cancel the service and pirate the show she made. Her frustration taps into a broader anxiety among artists who worry that their work gets scraped, mimicked, or sidelined by generative tools and corporate shortcuts.

What Disney says it wants from AI

On Disney's latest earnings call, CEO Bob Iger sketched out the company’s AI play in broad strokes. The pitch: make Disney+ more interactive and customizable, and let fans participate more directly with Disney worlds. The eyebrow-raiser is the part about subscribers being able to generate and share content that is built on Disney's own IP. No products, tools, or partnerships were announced, just the direction of travel. The emphasis, at least for now, is on boosting engagement rather than replacing human creators.

• More interactive, personalized Disney+ experiences are on the roadmap.
• Disney wants to enable subscriber-made content that uses Disney characters and stories.
• No specific AI products, timelines, or partners were named.
• At the same time, Disney has filed a copyright lawsuit against Midjourney, accusing the company of using characters like Elsa (Frozen) and Darth Vader (Star Wars) without permission.

So yes, Disney is courting AI-fueled fan energy while also drawing hard boundaries around its IP. That tension is going to define a lot of the next few years.

Can AI and human creativity actually share space?

Terrace's post is the creator perspective in all caps: if AI starts co-opting the work of artists, it risks flattening the very originality studios depend on. There is a version of this where AI does the unglamorous grunt work (repetitive tasks, first-pass concepting, quick-and-dirty story tests) and leaves the storytelling, taste, and emotion to humans. But that outcome requires guardrails that are still fuzzy at best.

The rulebook is not settled

Regulation around generative AI is still a patchwork. There isn’t a single governing framework for how studios can train on or deploy creative data, and a lot of the lines around fair use, consent, and compensation are still gray. Until those lines get clearer, expect more flashpoints like this.

Where I land: the tech is here, but how studios wield it will decide whether creators see it as a tool or a threat. For now, Dana Terrace could not have been more clear. What do you think — are we getting real, enforceable rules around this in the next few years, or is it going to be court battles and chaos for a while?