Disney and Universal take Midjourney to court over alleged plagiarism
Disney and Universal have filed a landmark lawsuit against AI image generator Midjourney, accusing the San Francisco-based company of large-scale copyright infringement and calling its tools a “bottomless pit of plagiarism”.
Hollywood’s Big Showdown: Disney & Universal vs. Midjourney
Picture this: an AI that can turn a handful of words into lifelike images—great, right? Disaster, when it starts mimicking beloved characters like Darth Vader, Yoda, Elsa or even Shrek, and does it all on a club‑grabbing spree of unpermitted photos.
The Stiff Accusation
Disney and Universal have marched into a federal courtroom in Los Angeles, shouting that Midjourney’s model has illegally copied and openly sold artwork built from their iconic intellectual property. They point to a training database stuffed with millions of images borked off the web—no permissions, no consent.
Legal Rumble: “Piracy is Piracy”
- Horacio Gutierrez, Disney’s Chief Legal Officer – “Piracy is piracy,” he said. “If an AI company does it, the fact doesn’t make it any less infringing.”
- Kim Harris, NBCUniversal’s General Counsel – “We’re protecting the creative and financial investments of our studios and artists.”
What’s on the Book
- Midjourney allegedly ignored requests to stop using copyrighted material and refuse to install safety nets that would prevent users from generating infringing content.
- They’re fighting for a preliminary injunction that would grind Midjourney’s image–and‑video services to a halt unless an effective control mechanism is put in place.
- Financial damages are also on the table, although the exact sum remains TBD.
Midjourney’s Play‑Book
Last year, the AI firm pulled in a cool $300 million from paid subscriptions. Yet, they’re still staying tight‑lipped on the latest lawsuit. Previous legal chin‑wag with visual artists is still simmering—where the court found the artists’ claim that Midjourney “stored and reused” their work without consent to be solid. So, the stakes are ripe.
Broader Battle: Creators vs. AI
This case is a flashpoint for how creative industries are pushing back against a technology that’s suddenly poking into their protected territory. It’s not just movies: record labels, authors, and newsrooms are striking out at AI firms for training on protected content without permission or compensation.
The Stakes for the Future
Should the courts side with Disney and Universal, the ruling could become a decisive precedent—shaping whether training on copyrighted material is deemed fair use or an outright infringement. If not, companies like Midjourney might keep scraping the internet like it’s a free buffet, generating from mountains of human-made work with minimal accountability.
A Snap to the Media Landscape
- Some players, like The Guardian and Axel Springer, are opting to license their archives to AI firms.
- Others, such as The New York Times, are fronting lawsuits against OpenAI and Microsoft over unauthorized usage.
Bottom line: the courtroom showdown is the most clutch test yet of whether we can get a firm legal line in the wild, wild age of AI—or if the creative world will keep fighting for its own shelves while the tech giants roll out their code‑dreams with a shrug.
