In this post, I want to explain how Disney and Universal are suing the AI company Midjourney. The lawsuit claims that Midjourney freely utilized copyrighted images of well-known characters such as Mickey Mouse, Elsa, and Spider-Man for training purposes on their AI systems.
- The Lawsuit: A First from Hollywood Studios
- How The Allegations Unfold
- Training on scraped copyrighted images
- Direct and contributory copyright infringement
- Ignoring prior warnings
- Why This Case Matters
- What Disney & Universal Want
- Broader Implications for AI Industry
- Pressuring Standards for Generative AI
- Policy & Regulation Ripples
- Creators First
- Midjourney’s Position
- Conclusion
This fight symbolizes a new stage in the dispute between large corporations in the entertainment industry and new technologies such as artificial intelligence.
The Lawsuit: A First from Hollywood Studios
Midjourney, a company that generates AI-driven images, stands accused by Disney and Universal for copyright infringement—with both companies filing a lawsuit on June 11th, 2025 . This marks the first instance where Hollywood studios have taken legal action against an AI imagery firm.
The lawsuit claims that Midjourney used copyrights without approval—specifically from characters such as Yoda and Darth Vader to Minions alongside Elsa from Frozen, formed part of Disney’s franchise and even Shrek, Spiderman, and several more.
In their counterclaims against Ai image generator Midjourney, they say he is a “plagueless copyright free-rider”, “a bottomless pit filled with robbing creativity” in relation to the works done by these entertainment conglomerates.
How The Allegations Unfold
Training on scraped copyrighted images
Disney and Universal claim Midjourney used scrapers, bots, and crawlers to ingest their content and train its AI model “using innumerable unauthorized copies”
Direct and contributory copyright infringement
The complaint asserts Midjourney not only generated infringing images, but also displayed, distributed, promoted them on his platform, even showcasing in his Explore section.
Ignoring prior warnings
Both studios sent cease-and-desist letters. While other AI platforms voluntarily deployed protective filters, Midjourney refused and opted to release even more advanced models which produced higher-quality infringing visuals.
Why This Case Matters
Landmark legal precedent
This isn’t just another lawsuit—it’s a defining moment. Hollywood’s involvement in the AI-IP conflict ramps up the scrutiny on generative AI studios while testing the waters of copyright law.
Fair Use vs Copying
The “fair use” doctrine is often cited by AI developers as a defense when training models with copyrighted content. This lawsuit disputes that justification. In presenting character Midjourney outputs alongside originals in pairs, the studios claim transforms too little to be classified as transformative enough AI.
Financial Stakes
Last year, Midjourney earned an estimated $300 million from subscriptions, mostly due to users’ capabilities to generate IP-based images . Universal and Disney argue this model erodes financial motivations sustaining copyright law U.S. Copyright law serves aims to protect creative economies dependent on safeguarded intellectual property(IP). .
Video Generation Looms
The studios state that Midjourney is set to release a video generation function which they allege will be trained on studio IP prompts, thus broadening the risk beyond still images to dynamic visual content.
What Disney & Universal Want
Monetary damages: They are seeking compensation based on profits generated by Midjourney and/or statutory damages reaching $150,000 for each work infringed
Permanent injunction: They request that the court prohibits Midjourney from any further use of their copyrighted materials in imaging as well as prospective video creation tools until adequate legal safeguards are provided
Jury trial: These are requests from both studios to be tried by jury on the matter
Broader Implications for AI Industry
Pressuring Standards for Generative AI
If Disney and Universal are victorious, this could require AI companies to monetize copyrighted training data or implement exclusion filters. This would be similar to actions taken by media corporations such as The New York Times.
Policy & Regulation Ripples
This lawsuit is set in a firewall of international conversations around the rights of AI data ownership. In the UK, creators were offered an opt-out clause where they would have restricted data privacy. Meanwhile, US lawmakers are putting forward proposals to generativeAI transparency regulations .
Creators First
Among advocates considered the sue escalators are artists and authors who want to ensure that credit is given where it is dueand payment when appropriate which is fundamental for social infrastructure within AI society.
Midjourney’s Position
To date, Midjourney has not disclosed any comments related to the lawsuit, attending document David Holz did note that his firm scrapes datasets so it would be public information but he also recognized the challenge posed by determining sources for copyrighted works.
Conclusion
As a final note , Disney and Universal took legal action against Midjourney for violating their intellectual property rights by using copyrighted characters in its model training. This case represents the conflict between innovation and intellectual property rights.
Depending on how the case is settled, there may be significant changes to corporate policy regarding copyrighted material, as well as laws governing AI technology in the entertainment industry.
