Blab AI
Midjourney Seeks Disclosure of Hollywood Studios AI Use in Copyright Lawsuit
Midjourney has taken a hard line against Hollywood, filing a motion this week that asks a federal judge to force Disney, Universal and Warner Bros. Discovery to turn over internal documents that reveal how the studios employ artificial‑intelligence tools.
The request follows a June 2026 ruling that curtailed the company’s discovery into the studios’ own AI practices. Midjourney’s attorney, Bobby Ghajar, said the motion is designed to expose whether the defendants are “doing the very thing they seek to punish.” The company seeks a range of materials, from training datasets and business‑plan documents to board‑meeting presentations that touch on generative‑AI activities.
In addition, the motion asks for evidence that the studios download and train AI models on copyrighted content—a practice Midjourney claims is common in the industry. The lawsuit, which began in 2025, accuses Midjourney of producing images that replicate Disney, Universal and Warner Bros. characters without permission. The studios counter that the outputs constitute public performance and derivative works that infringe their rights, and they have asked Midjourney to stop generating images resembling their characters.
David Singer, counsel for the three studios, responded by stating that the studios’ primary goal is to protect their intellectual property. He said the studios want Midjourney to cease creating “publicly performing and derivative works that include copies of Plaintiffs’ famous characters without authorization,” framing the request as a standard copyright‑enforcement measure.
Disney has been the most transparent of the three studios about its own AI strategy. In late 2025, the company announced a $1 billion investment in OpenAI to license hundreds of Disney characters for use on the Sora video‑generation platform. The partnership collapsed earlier this year when OpenAI shut down Sora. Disney subsequently said it would continue to engage with AI platforms and “embrace new technologies that respect IP and the rights of creators.” How Disney’s future AI initiatives unfold may hinge on the outcome of the current lawsuit.
The motion is part of a broader discovery phase already underway. Court filings indicate that the Disney lawsuit against Midjourney is deep in discovery, and a post‑mediation status conference is scheduled for August 31, 2026 before Judge John A. Kronstadt. The consolidated case also includes a complaint filed by Universal and Warner Bros. Discovery, which seeks damages and Midjourney’s profits.
If the court grants the motion, the studios would be required to provide internal documents that are normally confidential. The request could set a precedent for how AI‑related litigation addresses the disclosure of proprietary AI practices and raises questions about the balance between protecting copyrighted works and allowing AI developers to train on large datasets.
At present, the lawsuit remains in the discovery stage, with both sides preparing for the upcoming conference. The studios have not yet responded to the motion, and Midjourney has not indicated whether it will comply with the request. The case is expected to continue shaping the legal landscape for generative AI and intellectual‑property rights in the entertainment industry.
The outcome of this motion could influence future AI lawsuits, as studios may be compelled to disclose their own AI usage. Meanwhile, the broader industry watches to see whether the courts will require AI companies to reveal how they train models on copyrighted material.
The request follows a June 2026 ruling that curtailed the company’s discovery into the studios’ own AI practices. Midjourney’s attorney, Bobby Ghajar, said the motion is designed to expose whether the defendants are “doing the very thing they seek to punish.” The company seeks a range of materials, from training datasets and business‑plan documents to board‑meeting presentations that touch on generative‑AI activities.
In addition, the motion asks for evidence that the studios download and train AI models on copyrighted content—a practice Midjourney claims is common in the industry. The lawsuit, which began in 2025, accuses Midjourney of producing images that replicate Disney, Universal and Warner Bros. characters without permission. The studios counter that the outputs constitute public performance and derivative works that infringe their rights, and they have asked Midjourney to stop generating images resembling their characters.
David Singer, counsel for the three studios, responded by stating that the studios’ primary goal is to protect their intellectual property. He said the studios want Midjourney to cease creating “publicly performing and derivative works that include copies of Plaintiffs’ famous characters without authorization,” framing the request as a standard copyright‑enforcement measure.
Disney has been the most transparent of the three studios about its own AI strategy. In late 2025, the company announced a $1 billion investment in OpenAI to license hundreds of Disney characters for use on the Sora video‑generation platform. The partnership collapsed earlier this year when OpenAI shut down Sora. Disney subsequently said it would continue to engage with AI platforms and “embrace new technologies that respect IP and the rights of creators.” How Disney’s future AI initiatives unfold may hinge on the outcome of the current lawsuit.
The motion is part of a broader discovery phase already underway. Court filings indicate that the Disney lawsuit against Midjourney is deep in discovery, and a post‑mediation status conference is scheduled for August 31, 2026 before Judge John A. Kronstadt. The consolidated case also includes a complaint filed by Universal and Warner Bros. Discovery, which seeks damages and Midjourney’s profits.
If the court grants the motion, the studios would be required to provide internal documents that are normally confidential. The request could set a precedent for how AI‑related litigation addresses the disclosure of proprietary AI practices and raises questions about the balance between protecting copyrighted works and allowing AI developers to train on large datasets.
At present, the lawsuit remains in the discovery stage, with both sides preparing for the upcoming conference. The studios have not yet responded to the motion, and Midjourney has not indicated whether it will comply with the request. The case is expected to continue shaping the legal landscape for generative AI and intellectual‑property rights in the entertainment industry.
The outcome of this motion could influence future AI lawsuits, as studios may be compelled to disclose their own AI usage. Meanwhile, the broader industry watches to see whether the courts will require AI companies to reveal how they train models on copyrighted material.
