Filmmaker Matti Haapoja Faces Backlash Over Higgsfield AI Promotion

Filmmaking creator Matti Haapoja is facing significant backlash from the creative community after producing content promoting Higgsfield AI. The controversy underscores a deepening divide between traditional artists and the generative AI industry.

Haapoja's content showcased Higgsfield's Seedance 2.5, a video generation model, framing the technology as a transformative force in production. However, the endorsement sparked immediate friction among viewers and fellow creators. The tension is centered on the nature of generative AI, which critics argue is built upon the uncredited work of human artists, making the promotion of such tools a contentious move for a creator whose brand is rooted in human skill.

The AI Creative Conflict

This incident arrives during a period of heightened volatility between AI firms and the creative class. Many filmmakers and digital artists view generative tools not as assistants, but as direct threats to their livelihoods and intellectual property. Because these models are typically trained on massive datasets of existing human-made work—often without the original creators' consent or compensation—the act of partnering with AI companies is frequently viewed as a betrayal of the craft.

Corporate Ambitions and Controversy

Higgsfield AI has positioned itself as a high-growth player in the space, though its trajectory has been marked by bold claims. By early February 2026, the company claimed an annualized revenue run rate exceeding $300 million. Additionally, the firm has reported rapid user growth, with some reports citing a user base of over 22 million people. These aggressive growth metrics often clash with the skepticism of a creative community that prioritizes authenticity and ethical sourcing over corporate scaling.

The Risk to Influencer Trust

The backlash against Haapoja highlights the precarious position of trust-based influencers. For creators who have built their authority on technical mastery and authenticity, endorsing automation tools that potentially undermine those very skills can lead to a rapid erosion of credibility. When the perceived value of a creator is their human eye and effort, the promotion of a "push-button" alternative can alienate the core audience that values human creativity.

What Remains Unclear

While the backlash against Haapoja is evident, the full extent of Higgsfield's promotional strategies remains a point of contention. The industry continues to watch how AI companies navigate the ethical minefield of training data and whether creators who embrace these tools will find a sustainable middle ground or face permanent reputational damage.