LOADING...
Midjourney demands Hollywood reveal AI usage details in legal fight
Midjourney's training process falls under fair use provisions

Midjourney demands Hollywood reveal AI usage details in legal fight

Jul 05, 2026
02:06 pm

What's the story

AI start-up Midjourney is embroiled in a legal battle with three major Hollywood studios: Disney, Universal, and Warner Bros. The dispute stems from allegations of copyright infringement due to Midjourney's image-generation models creating images of characters owned by these studios. In response to the lawsuits filed last year by Disney and Universal, and later Warner Bros., Midjourney has argued that its training process falls under fair use provisions.

Information request

Midjourney seeks to overturn limitations on document requests

The current dispute centers on what documents the studios must provide during the discovery process. A judge had previously ruled that studios must disclose information about their generative AI usage, but only for "consumer-facing" videos and images. Now, Midjourney wants to overturn this limitation, claiming it unfairly lets studios pick and choose documents supporting their market harm claims while denying those supporting its defenses.

Legal strategy

'Fishing expedition' claim by studios

Midjourney contends that the documents withheld by the studios could show whether they are using AI in a manner similar to what they are suing Midjourney for. The start-up also asked the studios to share all prompts used in its platform, not just those leading to allegedly infringing images. However, the studios' lead attorney David Singer has dismissed this as a "fishing expedition."

Advertisement

Clarification

Studios not seeking to shut down Midjourney, says lead attorney

Singer also clarified that the studios don't want to stop AI technology or shut down Midjourney's business. Their only demand is for Midjourney to stop copying their movies and TV shows, distributing, publicly displaying, performing, and creating derivative works that include copies of their famous characters without authorization. The case continues as both sides stick to their positions over what evidence should be shared.

Advertisement