Related Articles
Meta Quietly Enters AI Gaming With Pocket App
AI News
Jul 3, 2026
Midjourney is trying to turn Hollywood’s own artificial intelligence strategy into a central issue in one of the entertainment industry’s most closely watched copyright battles.
The AI image startup has asked a federal court to force Disney, Universal, and Warner Bros. to disclose broader details about how they use generative AI inside their own businesses. The request comes as part of an ongoing copyright lawsuit in which the studios accuse Midjourney of copying and reproducing famous characters through its AI image-generation system.
The dispute is no longer only about whether Midjourney trained on copyrighted material or allowed users to generate images resembling protected characters. It is also becoming a fight over whether major studios are using similar AI methods behind closed doors while arguing in court that Midjourney’s practices cause market harm.
Midjourney’s latest filing challenges a previous discovery order that limited what the studios must hand over. Under that order, the studios would need to provide information about generative AI use only when it resulted in consumer-facing images or videos.
Midjourney argues that the limit is too narrow. The company says internal AI work, including research, training, testing, storyboarding, creative development, model evaluation, and business planning, could be relevant to its defense.
The startup wants access to a wider set of materials, including AI business plans, research reports, training datasets, model information, internal presentations, policies, prompts, and outputs. Its argument is straightforward: if the studios are developing or using generative AI systems trained on copyrighted material, that could affect how the court views the industry’s own practices.
In simple terms, Midjourney is asking the court to look at the studios’ AI behavior, not only Midjourney’s.
The company is using two main lines of defense. One is fair use. Midjourney argues that training AI models on publicly available or copyrighted material can fall within fair use, depending on how the material is used and whether the output competes with the original work.
The second is what lawyers call an unclean hands defense. That argument suggests that a plaintiff should not be allowed to attack conduct that is similar to what it is doing itself.
Midjourney says information about studio AI projects could show whether the entertainment industry treats certain AI training and development practices as acceptable. If studios are investing in or building systems that use copyrighted works in similar ways, Midjourney believes that evidence could help its case.
This does not mean the court has accepted Midjourney’s argument. It only means the company is trying to expand the evidence available before the case moves deeper into trial preparation.
The studios have resisted the broader discovery request. Their position is that the lawsuit is not about every AI experiment inside Hollywood. It is about Midjourney allegedly copying and generating protected characters without authorization.
Their side argues that Midjourney is trying to shift attention away from the copyright claims by demanding sensitive internal documents about studio AI plans. Studio lawyers have described the request as overbroad and unnecessary.
That tension is important because discovery can become a major pressure point in corporate litigation. If Midjourney succeeds, studios may have to reveal internal AI strategies that they would rather keep confidential. If the studios succeed, Midjourney’s defense may be limited to a narrower record focused on consumer-facing AI outputs.
The case began when Disney and Universal sued Midjourney in 2025, accusing the company of using copyrighted works to train its AI models and allowing users to generate images of well-known characters from major franchises.
The studios cited examples involving characters linked to Star Wars, Frozen, The Simpsons, Marvel, Despicable Me, Shrek, and other entertainment properties. Warner Bros. later filed its own lawsuit involving characters such as Batman, Superman, Scooby-Doo, and others.
The studios say Midjourney benefits from their creative investments without permission. They argue that the platform can produce images that look like protected characters and that this creates unauthorized derivative works.
Midjourney has denied wrongdoing and has leaned heavily on fair use arguments. The company’s defense reflects a broader position taken by many AI firms: that model training can be lawful when it transforms large amounts of data into a system that generates new outputs.
The Midjourney case is one of the most important AI copyright battles because it involves powerful entertainment companies, recognizable characters, and a commercial AI tool used by millions of people.
Many previous AI copyright lawsuits focused on books, news articles, music, software, or artist portfolios. This case brings Hollywood’s most valuable character libraries into the center of the debate.
That makes the stakes higher. Film studios rely heavily on intellectual property. Franchises, characters, visual styles, and brand recognition are core business assets. If AI companies can generate near-identical versions of those assets without licensing them, studios see a direct threat to their creative and commercial control.
For AI companies, the issue is just as serious. A major court defeat could force changes in how models are trained, how outputs are filtered, and how copyrighted characters are handled. It could also increase pressure for licensing deals between AI developers and rights holders.
One of the biggest points in the current discovery dispute is the phrase “consumer-facing.”
The previous order allowed discovery into AI use that resulted in products or outputs shown to consumers. Midjourney says that line does not make sense because internal AI development can still reveal industry practice.
For example, a studio might use AI internally for storyboards, concept art, pitch materials, early animation tests, or creative brainstorming. Those materials may never be released directly to the public, but they could still influence finished films, shows, trailers, or marketing.
Midjourney argues that limiting discovery to public-facing outputs ignores how creative AI tools are actually used in production. The company says internal development could still matter if it shows that studios are training, testing, or relying on AI systems built from copyrighted material.
The court now has to decide whether that internal use is relevant enough to justify broader document production.
The case also highlights Hollywood’s complicated relationship with AI.
Studios are publicly cautious about unauthorized AI use, especially when it involves copyrighted characters, actor likenesses, writers’ work, or protected film libraries. At the same time, many entertainment companies are exploring AI for production planning, visual development, dubbing, localization, editing, marketing, restoration, analytics, and workflow automation.
That creates a difficult balance. Studios want strong protection against outside AI companies using their intellectual property without permission. But they also want room to use AI internally in ways that improve production speed, reduce costs, or support creative teams.
Midjourney’s legal strategy appears designed to expose that tension. By demanding internal AI records, the company is trying to show that the studios are not simply anti-AI. They may be against unauthorized AI use by others while developing AI systems of their own.
The next major step is for the court to decide whether the earlier discovery limitation should stand or whether Midjourney can obtain broader documents from the studios.
If the court sides with Midjourney, the case could move into a more uncomfortable phase for Hollywood. Studios may have to disclose internal AI plans, policies, experiments, datasets, and development records, subject to confidentiality protections.
If the court sides with the studios, the case will remain more tightly focused on Midjourney’s alleged generation of protected characters and the consumer-facing impact of AI outputs.
Either way, the discovery fight shows how AI copyright lawsuits are expanding beyond simple questions of copying. Courts are now being asked to examine training data, industry norms, internal AI use, market harm, creative workflows, and the boundaries of fair use.
This dispute is not just about Midjourney or a handful of famous characters. It is a preview of how the entertainment industry and AI companies may fight over creative control for years.
The studios want courts to recognize that copyrighted characters cannot be freely replicated through generative AI systems. Midjourney wants courts to recognize that AI training and image generation can be lawful under fair use, especially if similar practices are becoming common across the industry.
The result could shape licensing negotiations, AI product design, studio policies, and future copyright lawsuits. It may also influence how much transparency courts expect from both AI companies and the media giants challenging them.
For now, Midjourney has shifted the spotlight back onto Hollywood. The company is not only defending how its own system works. It is asking whether the studios suing it are willing to reveal how they use AI themselves.
Share your thoughts about this article.
Be the first to post a comment!
