Midjourney pushes Hollywood studios to reveal internal AI practices in copyright battle

Midjourney wants Hollywood studios to reveal the details of their AI usage

As part of an ongoing legal dispute with three Hollywood studios, AI startup Midjourney is seeking to compel those studios to reveal how they use AI themselves. Disney and Universal sued Midjourney for alleged copyright infringement last year, noting that the startup's image-generation models could create images of characters, such as Bart Simpson and Darth Vader, who are owned by the studios. A few months later, Warner Bros. sued Midjourney as well. The startup argues that training its AI models on images of copyrighted characters is permitted under fair use. The current dispute revolves around the documentation the studios will need to produce during the discovery process. A judge previously ruled that the studios would indeed have to provide information about their generative AI usage - but only when it led to "consumer-facing" videos and images. In its latest filing, Midjourney seeks to overturn that limitation, arguing that it "unfairly" allows the studios "to cherry-pick only those documents they believe support their market harm claims while depriving Midjourney of documents that would support its defenses." Midjourney goes on to claim that the "documents [the studios] are withholding are precisely those that would reveal whether, behind closed doors, they are doing exactly what they are suing Midjourney for doing." For example, the startup says that if the studios are developing image-generating AI models "for internal use in storyboarding or ideating content for film or TV, that evidence would equally demonstrate that it is an industry custom, even among the studios themselves, to download and train AI on unlicensed copyrighted content." In the filing, the startup also argues that the studios should reveal all the prompts they used in Midjourney, as well as the resulting outputs, not just the prompts that produced the allegedly infringing images. The studios' lead attorney David Singer previously claimed Midjourney was seeking this documentation as part of a "fishing expedition." He also said the studios "do not seek to stop AI technology or even shut down Midjourney's business," but rather "simply want Midjourney to stop copying their movies and TV shows and to stop distributing, publicly displaying, publicly performing, and creating derivative works that include copies of [their] famous characters without authorization."

Midjourney wants the Hollywood studios that sued it to show the court how they use AI - Engadget

The image generator argued that the companies are also training their AI on copyrighted data. Midjourney wants to see how Warner Bros. Discovery, Disney and Universal Studios use artificial intelligence technologies in their shows and movies, and according to Variety it wants the companies to submit that information to court. Last year, the studios filed a lawsuit against the AI image generator, accusing it of copyright infringement for being able to generate images of Superman, Batman and other copyrighted characters. Midjourney argued that training AI with publicly available images is fair use and that the studios themselves use the same training practices for their own AI models. Specifically, Midjourney is asking for the studios' AI business plans, research reports, training datasets, model weights and even the presentations about AI the companies used for their board meetings. However, in mid-June, a magistrate judge allowed the studios to withhold most information involving their AI use and to hand over only information related to "consumer-facing" AI applications. Now, Midjourney is asking the federal court to overturn that judge's order. According to litigation publication Mealey's, Midjourney's reasoning is that the evidence it's asking for is related to its fair use defense. If the image generator can show that the studios themselves are training their own models on copyrighted works, then it could weaken their lawsuit. "If Plaintiffs are doing the very thing they seek to punish, that evidence goes to the heart of Midjourney's fair use and unclean hands defenses," wrote Midjourney attorney Bobby Ghajar. The federal judge's decision for this case could have an effect on future lawsuits, as it could set a precedent on what kind of information should and can be admitted in court.

Midjourney Thinks Hollywood Should Fess Up About Using AI

Generative AI is causing some headaches in Hollywood, with Midjourney being sued by major studios last year. Since it's already under the microscope, the tech company thinks the studios going after it should reveal in full how much they're using the controversial technology. Earlier this week, a Midjourney lawyer filed a motion arguing that Disney, Universal, and Warner Bros. should have to show what they've gotten out of its similarly-named learning model. The motion follows a judge's ruling in June that limited its ability to learn about said studios' genAI usage. With this motion, the company is looking to obtain details from each studio, including training datasets and business plans, plus board meeting presentations about generative AI overall. "If Plaintiffs are doing the very thing they seek to punish, that evidence goes to the heart of Midjourney's fair use and unclean hands defenses," said Midjourney attorney Bobby Ghajar. Before this motion, Disney, Universal, and WB each agreed to hand over information related to front-facing consumer information, none of which included internal AI tools. He further argued if such tools exist at these studios, that "equally demonstrates [this] an industry custom, even among the studios themselves, to download and train AI on unlicensed copyrighted content." Conversely, David Singer, representing the three studios, countered Ghajar's statement, and said the studios just want Midjourney "to stop copying their movies and TV shows and to stop...publicly performing and creating derivative works that include copies of Plaintiffs' famous characters without authorization." That desire, he added, is something "any copyright holder would assert against any infringer, AI-powered or otherwise." Of the three, it's Disney that's been the most transparent about its interest in the technology: in late 2025, it announced a $1 billion investment into OpenAI that would bring "hundreds" of Disney characters to the Sora platform. Those plans fell apart earlier this year after SoraAI got shut down, with the media corporation saying it'd still engage with AI platforms and "embrace new technologies that respect IP and the rights of creators." What that engagement looks like may depend on how this lawsuit, and whatever else Midjourney may uncover from the three companies, shakes out. [via Variety] Want more io9 news? Check out when to expect the latest Marvel, Star Wars, and Star Trek releases, what's next for the DC Universe on film and TV, and everything you need to know about the future of Doctor Who.

Midjourney is Trying to Force Hollywood to Reveal How it Uses AI

The AI image generator Midjourney is determined to force Hollywood to reveal how the movie industry uses AI -- as the company accuses the studios of hypocrisy. Midjourney is currently being sued by Disney, Universal, and Warner Bros. over allegations of widespread copyright infringement since the image generator can output AI pictures of recognizable characters such as Yoda from Star Wars. Midjourney doesn't deny the allegations, arguing that training AI on copyrighted material qualifies as fair use. Furthermore, Midjourney says that Disney, Universal, and Warner Bros. all use similar generative AI tools internally. While a judge has already ruled that the plaintiffs must provide information about their generative AI use, it only relates to "consumer-facing" tools. Midjourney says that behind closed doors, "they are doing exactly what they are suing Midjourney for doing." In its most recent court filing, Midjourney says the prior judge's ruling allows studios "to cherry-pick only those documents they believe support their market harm claims while depriving Midjourney of documents that would support its defenses." Midjourney is asking a federal judge to overturn the earlier decision, arguing that Hollywood studios must reveal how much AI is being used in their productions. "If Plaintiffs are doing the very thing they seek to punish, that evidence goes to the heart of Midjourney's fair use and unclean hands defenses," says Midjourney attorney Bobby Ghajar, per Engadget. "If Plaintiffs are developing image-generating AI models -- trained on unlicensed, third-party copyrighted data -- for internal use in storyboarding or ideating content for film or TV, that evidence would equally demonstrate that it is an industry custom, even among the studios themselves, to download and train AI on unlicensed copyrighted content." Variety reports that the plaintiffs' attorney previously argued that Midjourney is on a "fishing expedition" in a bid to distract from the company's misdeeds. "Plaintiffs simply want Midjourney to stop copying their movies and TV shows and to stop distributing, publicly displaying, publicly performing, and creating derivative works that include copies of Plaintiffs' famous characters without authorization," says David Singer. "The same rights any copyright holder would assert against any infringer, AI-powered or otherwise." PetaPixel has previously written about Hollywood's reluctance to share how it uses unpopular generative AI technology. Image credits: Header photo licensed via Depositphotos.

Midjourney pushes to expose studios' own AI practices in copyright fight

Credit: Sheldon Cooper/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images Midjourney is attempting to turn the tables on the Hollywood studios suing it for copyright infringement, asking a federal judge to compel Disney, Universal, and Warner Bros. Discovery to disclose their internal use of artificial intelligence, according to a Variety report published this week. The discovery dispute is the latest chapter in a copyright battle that began in June 2025, when Disney and Comcast's Universal filed suit, accusing Midjourney of enabling large-scale infringement of copyrighted characters. That original complaint described Midjourney as a "bottomless pit of plagiarism" that generated unauthorized recreations of characters, including Darth Vader and Elsa, as previously reported by this outlet. Warner Bros. Discovery joined the fight three months later, in September 2025, accusing Midjourney of "brazen theft" involving characters such as Superman, Batman, and Bugs Bunny, and seeking $150,000 per infringed work. More than a year into the litigation, Midjourney has countered with a "fair use" defense, arguing the studios engage in comparable AI practices internally. Per Variety, the company's attorney, Bobby Ghajar, wrote that if the studios are "doing the very thing they seek to punish," that evidence is central to Midjourney's fair-use and "unclean hands" arguments. The company is seeking access to the studios' AI business plans, training datasets, model weights, and board presentations on AI. A magistrate judge ruled against Midjourney's broader discovery request in mid-June 2026, limiting the studios' disclosure obligations to consumer-facing AI tools rather than internal systems. Midjourney has since asked Judge John Kronstadt to overturn that ruling. The studios' attorney, David Singer, has dismissed the effort as a "fishing expedition" meant to deflect from Midjourney's own conduct, according to Variety's reporting.

Midjourney pushes Hollywood studios to reveal internal AI use

AI startup Midjourney is pushing for Hollywood studios Disney, Universal, and Warner Bros. to disclose how they utilize artificial intelligence in their own operations amid an ongoing legal dispute. Disney and Universal sued Midjourney for alleged copyright infringement last year, claiming the startup's models could create images of characters such as Bart Simpson and Darth Vader. Warner Bros. subsequently joined the legal actions against Midjourney. Midjourney defends its practices, asserting that training its AI models on copyrighted images is permissible under fair use. The focal point of the current legal dispute centers around what documentation the studios must produce during the discovery process. A judge had previously ruled that the studios are required to provide information about their generative AI usage, but only in cases leading to "consumer-facing" content. In its recent filing, Midjourney seeks to lift this limitation, arguing that it enables the studios to "cherry-pick" documents that may bolster their market harm claims while withholding those that might aid Midjourney's defense. The startup contends that the withheld documents could demonstrate whether the studios engage in activities similar to what they are accusing Midjourney of undertaking. For instance, Midjourney claims that if the studios are developing image-generating AI for internal use in areas like storyboarding for films or television, it would suggest a common industry practice of using unlicensed copyrighted content for training AI. Additionally, Midjourney requests access to all prompts used by the studios in relation to its AI, not just those linked to alleged infringement. Attorneys for the studios, led by David Singer, have criticized Midjourney's approach, calling it a "fishing expedition" for documents. Singer emphasized that the studios are not attempting to halt AI development or shut down Midjourney's operations but aim to ensure that Midjourney does not copy their intellectual property without authorization.

Midjourney demands studios' AI use records in copyright dispute

* Access the court document about Midjourney from here AI image generator Midjourney is asking a US court to force Disney, Universal, and Warner Bros. to disclose how they use artificial intelligence internally, arguing that the studios may be engaging in the same practices they are suing the company over. How the dispute began: The request is part of an ongoing copyright lawsuit in which Disney and Universal sued Midjourney in June 2025, followed by Warner Bros. in September 2025. The studios allege that Midjourney trained its AI models on copyrighted material and allows users to generate images of protected characters such as Darth Vader, Bart Simpson, Superman, and Batman without permission. Midjourney has denied wrongdoing and argues that training AI models on copyrighted works is protected under the fair use doctrine. Discovery battle moves to AI practices: The latest dispute is over the scope of evidence that the studios must hand over during the discovery process. A judge had earlier ruled that the studios must produce information about their use of generative AI but limited it to AI systems that created "consumer-facing" images and videos. Midjourney is now challenging that restriction. In a court filing, it argues that the limitation lets the studios "cherry-pick only those documents they believe support their market harm claims while depriving Midjourney of documents that would support its defenses." The company further argues that the withheld records "would reveal whether, behind closed doors, they are doing exactly what they are suing Midjourney for doing." According to the filing, if the studios are training AI models on unlicensed copyrighted material for internal purposes such as storyboarding or developing ideas for films and television, it would support Midjourney's argument that such practices are common across the industry. What else Midjourney wants: Midjourney also wants the studios to disclose all prompts their employees or investigators entered into its AI system, along with the resulting images, instead of only the prompts cited in the lawsuits. In its filing, the company argues that because the studios are seeking to hold it liable for images created by users, "Midjourney, and the fact-finder need to know which (and how many) prompts and outputs were generated by Plaintiffs and their agents because, as a matter of law, those outputs cannot be infringing." The filing also challenges the judge's "consumer-facing" limitation, saying there is no legal basis to distinguish between AI developed for public use and AI used internally. It argues that if studios are training AI on unlicensed copyrighted works for internal creative processes, that evidence is equally relevant to its fair use and unclean hands defenses. Studios oppose broader disclosure: The studios have opposed the broader disclosure request. Their lead lawyer, David Singer, previously described Midjourney's demand as a "fishing expedition." He said the studios "do not seek to stop AI technology or even shut down Midjourney's business" but "simply want Midjourney to stop copying their movies and TV shows and to stop distributing, publicly displaying, publicly performing, and creating derivative works that include copies of [their] famous characters without authorisation."