Midjourney is trying to force Disney, Universal and Warner Bros. to reveal how they use artificial intelligence to protect against potentially devastating copyright lawsuits.
Both studios sued AI Image Labs last year, accusing them of enabling large-scale infringement of copyrighted characters. Midjourney claimed “fair use” and argued that both studios engaged in exactly the same AI practices.
In June, a magistrate judge limited Midjourney’s ability to obtain evidence from studios about their AI use, saying studios would only have to submit information about “consumer” AI applications.
Midjourney lawyers filed a motion this week asking Judge John Kronstadt to overturn that decision, arguing that the studio should be more transparent about how AI is used behind the scenes.
“If the plaintiffs are doing exactly what they are seeking to punish, that evidence is central to Midjourney’s fair use and unclean hands defense,” Midjourney attorney Bobby Gajjar wrote.
Midjourney wants the three studios to reveal their AI business plans, research reports, training datasets, model weights, and other data showing how they use AI tools to produce and sell movies and TV shows. The company is also seeking a presentation to the studio’s board of directors on AI.
The studios agreed to hand over only information about consumer-facing AI applications, but not their internal AI tools.
In a June 15 ruling, Magistrate Judge Joel Richlin denied Midjourney’s attempt to obtain broader information about the studio’s use of AI, finding it irrelevant to the question of whether Midjourney had infringed the studio’s copyrights.
Midjourney’s motion also argues that digging deeper should be allowed.
“If Plaintiffs are developing image-generating AI models trained on unlicensed third-party copyrighted data for internal use in film and television storyboarding and content ideation, the evidence would similarly establish that it is an industry practice, even among the studios themselves, to download unlicensed copyrighted content to train their AI,” Ghajar wrote.
The studio’s lead attorney, David Singer, previously argued that Midjourney was trying to stage a “fishing expedition” to distract from its illegal activities.
“Plaintiffs are not seeking to shut down the AI technology, or even to shut down Midjourney’s operations,” 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 unauthorized distribution, public display, public performance, and creation of derivative works, including copies of Plaintiffs’ famous characters. This is the same right that copyright owners assert against all infringers, whether caused by AI or not.”
