Midjourney is fighting back against Disney, Universal, and Warner Bros. by demanding they disclose their own internal AI practices, arguing the studios use similar unlicensed training methods. The move is a strategic defense in an ongoing copyright lawsuit that started in June 2025, when the studios sued Midjourney for generating unauthorized recreations of copyrighted characters. A magistrate judge limited what Midjourney can compel from the studios, but the company is asking a federal judge to reverse that decision.
Summaries like this, in your inbox every morning.
Sign up free →What happened
Midjourney is asking a federal judge to compel Disney, Universal, and Warner Bros. Discovery to reveal their internal use of artificial intelligence. The request is part of a copyright lawsuit that began in June 2025, when Disney and Universal sued Midjourney for enabling large-scale infringement of copyrighted characters like Darth Vader and Elsa. Warner Bros. joined in September 2025, seeking $150,000 per infringed work.
Why it matters
Midjourney is arguing a "fair use" defense by claiming the studios engage in comparable AI practices internally. If the company can show the studios are using unlicensed AI training methods themselves, it may undercut their accusations of "brazen theft" and support Midjourney's "unclean hands" argument. This defense strategy could reshape how courts view AI copyright claims across the industry.
What to watch
A magistrate judge ruled against Midjourney's broader discovery request in mid-June 2026, limiting the studios' disclosure to consumer-facing AI tools rather than internal systems. Midjourney has asked Judge John Kronstadt to overturn that ruling. The studios' attorney has dismissed the effort as a "fishing expedition" meant to deflect from Midjourney's conduct.
The copyright dispute between Midjourney and Hollywood's major studios has escalated into a discovery battle over what constitutes fair use in AI training. Midjourney's legal team, led by attorney Bobby Ghajar, is betting that if it can demonstrate the studios use comparable AI practices internally—training on unlicensed data, developing proprietary models—the courts may view the copyright claims as hypocritical. This "unclean hands" defense strategy hinges on the argument that the studios themselves are "doing the very thing they seek to punish."
The discovery fight reveals a deeper tension in AI copyright litigation: the question of whether large institutions should be held to the same standards they impose on startups. The magistrate judge's mid-June 2026 ruling limiting disclosure to consumer-facing tools only suggests the courts are skeptical of broad internal-systems discovery at this stage. Midjourney's appeal to Judge John Kronstadt is a long shot, especially given the studios' characterization of the request as a "fishing expedition." However, the case underscores that AI training practices across the entertainment industry may be more uniform—and more legally ambiguous—than the public debate has acknowledged.
No comments yet. Be the first to share your thoughts!
Log in to join the discussion
Get curated AI news from 200+ sources delivered daily to your inbox. Free to use.
Get Started FreeFree · takes 30 seconds · unsubscribe anytime
1 minute a day. The AI essentials.
200+ sources · Email / LINE / Slack
