What exactly is Midjourney accused of doing?

According to the complaint, Midjourney unlawfully used copyrighted works to train its image-generation models, generated highly recognizable depictions of copyrighted characters such as Darth Vader, Mickey Mouse, Shrek, Yoda, and Bart Simpson, and continued producing infringing outputs after receiving notice from the studios.

What is Midjourney's main defense?

Midjourney argues that training AI models on billions of publicly available images is transformative rather than substitutive, because the model learns statistical relationships rather than storing expressive copies. It also contends that even if training is legal, outputs that closely resemble protected characters may raise separate liability questions. Midjourney further argued that the studios' own internal AI use should bear on market harm, available safeguards, and industry standards.

What did the court decide about discovery?

The court largely rejected Midjourney's request for sweeping discovery into the studios' internal AI development and use, finding much of it irrelevant or disproportionate. However, the court allowed targeted discovery tied to narrower issues such as market harm, technological safeguards, and the scope of requested relief.

Back to articlesTop Companies' AI Moves

Top Companies' AI Moves

Disney, NBCUniversal Sue Midjourney Over AI-Generated Characters

Top Companies AI — US (2/2)2d ago6 min read

Key takeaway

Disney, NBCUniversal, and Warner Bros. sued Midjourney, alleging the AI image platform trained on copyrighted works and generated recognizable copyrighted characters without permission. A court allowed narrow discovery into the studios' own internal AI practices but rejected sweeping requests, underscoring that judges are beginning to scrutinize how AI models are trained and how copyrighted content is generated. The case may define legal boundaries for generative AI for years to come, affecting companies across software, media, health care, and finance.

Summaries like this, in your inbox every morning.

3 Key Points

What happened
Disney, NBCUniversal, and Warner Bros. filed a major copyright lawsuit against Midjourney, claiming the AI image platform unlawfully used copyrighted works to train its models and generated recognizable depictions of protected characters including Darth Vader, Mickey Mouse, and Shrek. A court allowed limited discovery into the studios' internal AI practices tied to market harm and technical safeguards, but rejected most of Midjourney's broader requests for disclosure.
Why it matters
The case raises fundamental unresolved questions that will likely shape AI law across many industries—including whether training on copyrighted material is itself infringement, whether such training qualifies as fair use, and when AI-generated outputs become infringing derivative works. Outcomes could affect software companies, marketing agencies, health care organizations, financial institutions, publishers, and enterprise AI vendors that develop or rely on generative AI tools.
What to watch
The litigation extends well beyond this dispute. Courts must still determine whether training on copyrighted material and generating similar outputs are separate legal questions, and how to distinguish inspiration from unlawful copying. Businesses deploying AI should now document approved use cases, evaluate training data sources where feasible, implement controls to reduce generation of copyrighted material, and review vendor IP representations.

FAQ

What exactly is Midjourney accused of doing?: According to the complaint, Midjourney unlawfully used copyrighted works to train its image-generation models, generated highly recognizable depictions of copyrighted characters such as Darth Vader, Mickey Mouse, Shrek, Yoda, and Bart Simpson, and continued producing infringing outputs after receiving notice from the studios.
What is Midjourney's main defense?: Midjourney argues that training AI models on billions of publicly available images is transformative rather than substitutive, because the model learns statistical relationships rather than storing expressive copies. It also contends that even if training is legal, outputs that closely resemble protected characters may raise separate liability questions. Midjourney further argued that the studios' own internal AI use should bear on market harm, available safeguards, and industry standards.
What did the court decide about discovery?: The court largely rejected Midjourney's request for sweeping discovery into the studios' internal AI development and use, finding much of it irrelevant or disproportionate. However, the court allowed targeted discovery tied to narrower issues such as market harm, technological safeguards, and the scope of requested relief.

Discussion

No comments yet. Be the first to share your thoughts!

Stay ahead with AI news

Get curated AI news from 200+ sources delivered daily to your inbox. Free to use.

Get Started Free

Free · takes 30 seconds · unsubscribe anytime

1 minute a day. The AI essentials.

200+ sources · Email / LINE / Slack

Get it free →

Disney, NBCUniversal Sue Midjourney Over AI-Generated Characters

Key takeaway

3 Key Points

FAQ

Discussion

Related Articles

Healthcare supply chains face mounting disruption amid geopolitical pressure

Walmart-Google AI Partnership Reshapes Payment Stack Winners

Lumentum surges on AI optics boom; Morgan Stanley raises target to $520

Article body does not contain news content

Tesla caps worker AI spending at $200 weekly

Meta enters cloud market to monetize AI data center investments

Stay ahead with AI news