Midjourney is attempting to force major Hollywood studios to reveal their internal artificial intelligence strategies as part of an ongoing copyright infringement lawsuit. According to a Variety report, the AI company has asked a federal judge to compel Disney, Universal, and Warner Bros. Discovery to disclose proprietary information, including internal AI business plans, model weights, and training datasets. Midjourney’s legal team argues this data is essential to support its “fair use” defense and claims of “unclean hands” against the studios.
Why Midjourney is seeking studio internal data
Midjourney’s legal strategy centers on the argument that the studios suing it are likely engaging in the same AI practices they seek to punish. According to attorney Bobby Ghajar, if the studios are using AI internally in a manner comparable to Midjourney, that evidence is central to the company’s defense. The company is specifically targeting documentation regarding how these studios train their own models and utilize AI within their production pipelines.
Midjourney’s push for discovery is based on the “unclean hands” legal doctrine, which suggests that a plaintiff cannot seek equitable relief if they have acted unethically regarding the subject matter of the lawsuit.
The history of the copyright battle
The litigation began in June 2025 when Disney and Comcast’s Universal filed a lawsuit against Midjourney. The studios accused the platform of becoming a “bottomless pit of plagiarism,” alleging it generated unauthorized recreations of iconic intellectual property such as Elsa from Frozen and Darth Vader from Star Wars. Warner Bros. Discovery joined the legal action in September 2025, claiming “brazen theft” of characters like Superman, Batman, and Bugs Bunny, and is seeking damages of $150,000 per infringed work.
What happens to the discovery request?
The path to obtaining this data remains blocked for now. In mid-June 2026, a magistrate judge ruled against Midjourney’s broader request for internal documents, limiting disclosure obligations to consumer-facing AI tools rather than proprietary internal systems. Midjourney has since appealed this, asking Judge John Kronstadt to overturn the magistrate’s ruling. Conversely, David Singer, the attorney for the studios, has dismissed the request as a “fishing expedition” designed to distract from Midjourney’s own conduct.
Comparison: The legal arguments
| Party | Primary Argument |
|---|---|
| Studios | Midjourney enables large-scale, unauthorized infringement of copyrighted characters. |
| Midjourney | The studios engage in similar AI practices and are using the litigation to hide their own internal methods. |
Frequently Asked Questions
- What are the studios accusing Midjourney of?
The studios allege that Midjourney uses their copyrighted characters, such as Batman and Elsa, to train its AI without authorization. - What is Midjourney’s main defense?
Midjourney is relying on a “fair use” defense, while also arguing that the studios themselves utilize AI in ways that contradict their claims. - Has the judge granted access to the studios’ internal data?
No. A magistrate judge denied the request in June 2026, limiting discovery to consumer-facing tools, though Midjourney is currently seeking to overturn that decision.
Stay informed on AI legal trends
The intersection of generative AI and intellectual property law is evolving rapidly. Subscribe to our newsletter to receive updates on high-stakes litigation and the future of creative rights. Have thoughts on this case? Leave a comment below and join the discussion.
d, without any additional comments or text.
[/gpt3]
