Midjourney Forces Disney, Universal and Warner Bros. to Reveal How They Use AI in Copyright Battle

Midjourney is trying to force Disney, Universal, and Warner Bros. to share details about how they use artificial intelligence. The move comes as the AI image company continues to defend itself in a major copyright lawsuit brought by the three Hollywood studios.

The information comes from a report by Variety, which has been covering the ongoing legal fight between the studios and Midjourney. The case began last year when Disney, Universal, and Warner Bros. sued Midjourney. The studios claim the company’s AI image tools allow users to generate content that copies or closely imitates their copyrighted characters. They argue this leads to large-scale copyright infringement.

Midjourney has rejected these claims. The company says its system is protected under “fair use.” It also argues that the studios themselves may be using artificial intelligence in similar ways during their own production processes. This argument has now become a major point in the case.

In June, a magistrate judge limited what Midjourney could request from the studios during the discovery process. The judge said the studios only need to share information about “consumer-facing” AI tools. That means public-facing applications, not internal systems used behind the scenes.

Midjourney was not satisfied with that decision. This week, its lawyers filed a motion asking Judge John Kronstadt to reverse the ruling and allow broader access to information about how the studios use AI.

Midjourney’s legal team argues that this information is important to its defense. They believe that if the studios are using AI in similar ways, it could support their claim that AI training and use of copyrighted material is common in the industry.

Midjourney attorney Bobby Ghajar explained the company’s position in court documents. He wrote, “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 asking for a wide range of internal materials. This includes AI business plans, research reports, training data, model weights, and documents related to how AI is used in movie and TV production. Midjourney has also requested access to studio board presentations discussing artificial intelligence strategy.

The studios have refused to share this kind of internal information. They have agreed only to provide details about consumer-facing AI tools, not private systems used in production or development. Earlier in the case, on June 15, magistrate judge Joel Richlin ruled that Midjourney’s broader requests were not relevant. He said the company’s demands went beyond what was needed to determine whether copyright infringement had taken place.

Midjourney is now arguing that the ruling is too narrow and prevents it from fully defending itself. The company says that if the studios are using AI tools trained on copyrighted material for internal creative work, it would support its argument that such practices are common in the industry.

Ghajar added 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 disagree with Midjourney’s approach. Their legal team says the company is trying to expand the case beyond its original scope. Attorney David Singer previously described Midjourney’s strategy as a distraction from the main issue of alleged copyright infringement.

Singer wrote, “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.”

The case continues as both sides argue over how much information must be shared. At the center of the dispute is a bigger question facing the entertainment industry. That is how AI tools should be used, and who owns the rights when those tools are trained on existing creative works.

For now, the court will decide whether Midjourney can dig deeper into how the major studios are using artificial intelligence behind the scenes.

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