Midjourney is pushing Disney, Universal, and Warner Bros. to disclose their artificial intelligence usage as it defends against a potentially devastating copyright lawsuit.
Last year, these studios filed a lawsuit against the AI image lab, alleging it facilitated widespread infringement of their copyrighted characters. Midjourney has countered these claims by asserting “fair use” and contending that the studios themselves engage in similar AI practices.
In June, a magistrate judge restricted Midjourney’s ability to gather information from the studios about their AI usage, ruling that only details about “consumer-facing” AI applications needed to be disclosed.
This week, Midjourney’s legal team filed a motion requesting Judge John Kronstadt to overturn that decision, arguing for more comprehensive disclosure regarding the studios’ behind-the-scenes AI usage.
“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,” stated Midjourney’s attorney, Bobby Ghajar.
Midjourney is seeking insight into the studios’ AI business plans, research reports, training datasets, model weights, and other data to demonstrate how they utilize AI tools in creating and marketing films and TV shows. The company has also requested access to board meeting presentations about AI from the studios.
While the studios have agreed to share information regarding consumer-facing AI applications, they have declined to disclose details about internal AI tools.
On June 15, magistrate judge Joel Richlin ruled against Midjourney’s attempt to obtain extensive information on the studios’ AI use, determining it was irrelevant to the question of whether Midjourney had infringed on the studios’ copyrights.
Midjourney’s motion contends that a deeper investigation should be permitted.
“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, even among the studios themselves, to download and train AI on unlicensed copyrighted content,” Ghajar asserted.
The studios’ lead attorney, David Singer, has previously claimed that Midjourney is on a “fishing expedition” to divert attention from its own alleged wrongdoing.
“Plaintiffs do not seek to stop AI technology or even shut down Midjourney’s business,” Singer wrote in opposition to Midjourney’s initial discovery motion. “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 same rights any copyright holder would assert against any infringer, AI-powered or otherwise.”
