Midjourney Pressures Disney, Universal and Warner Bros. to Disclose AI Usage in Copyright Case

Midjourney is pushing Disney, Universal, and Warner Bros. to disclose how they utilize artificial intelligence. This development arises as the AI image company defends itself in a significant copyright lawsuit initiated by the three Hollywood studios.

According to a report by Variety, which has been closely following the ongoing legal battle, the case commenced last year when Disney, Universal, and Warner Bros. filed a lawsuit against Midjourney. The studios allege that the company’s AI image tools enable users to create content that replicates or closely resembles their copyrighted characters, leading to widespread copyright infringement.

Midjourney has dismissed these allegations, asserting that its system is protected under the principle of “fair use.” The company contends that the studios might also be employing artificial intelligence in comparable ways during their production processes, a point that has become crucial in the case.

In June, a magistrate judge restricted what Midjourney could request from the studios during the discovery phase, ruling that the studios only need to provide information about “consumer-facing” AI tools, which refers to public applications rather than internal systems.

Unhappy with this ruling, Midjourney’s legal team recently filed a motion requesting Judge John Kronstadt to overturn the decision and grant broader access to information regarding the studios’ AI usage.

Midjourney’s attorneys argue that this information is vital for its defense. They believe that if the studios are using AI in similar manners, it could bolster their claim that the training and use of copyrighted material is a common practice in the industry.

Midjourney attorney Bobby Ghajar explained the company’s stance in court documents, stating, “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.”

The company is seeking a wide array of internal documents, including AI business plans, research reports, training data, model weights, and records related to AI’s role in film and TV production. Midjourney has also requested access to studio board presentations that discuss their artificial intelligence strategies.

However, the studios have declined to share this internal information, agreeing only to provide details about consumer-facing AI tools, not private systems used in production. Earlier in the case, on June 15, magistrate judge Joel Richlin ruled that Midjourney’s broader requests were irrelevant, stating that the demands exceeded what was necessary to determine if copyright infringement occurred.

Midjourney now contends that this ruling is overly restrictive and hampers its ability to mount a complete defense. The company argues that if the studios are indeed using AI tools trained on copyrighted material for internal creative tasks, it would support its claim that such practices are commonplace in the industry.

Ghajar further noted in court filings, “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.”

The studios, however, strongly oppose Midjourney’s approach. Their legal representatives argue that the company is attempting to broaden the case beyond its original parameters. Attorney David Singer previously characterized Midjourney’s strategy as a diversion from the primary issue of alleged copyright infringement.

Singer stated, “Plaintiffs do not seek to stop AI technology or even shut down Midjourney’s business. 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.”

As the case progresses, both sides continue to dispute how much information must be shared. Central to this conflict is a broader question facing the entertainment industry: how AI tools should be utilized and who holds the rights when these tools are trained on existing creative works.

For now, the court will determine whether Midjourney can delve deeper into how the major studios are employing artificial intelligence behind the scenes.

Have something to add? Let us know in the comments!