On June 3, 2025, the U.S. entertainment industry made major waves. Disney and Universal Pictures jointly filed a federal lawsuit against Midjourney, an artificial intelligence image generation company, alleging “systematic copyright infringement” and unauthorized use of a large number of protected film and television images to train its AI models. The case is the most landmark legal battle to date between a traditional film and television giant and an emerging AI technology company. According to the plaintiffs’ complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Midjourney is accused of using concept art, artwork, and movie stills from a variety of series, including Star Wars, The Avengers, Harry Potter, and Jurassic World, as training data to support its AI models in generating images that are “highly similar to the originals “Images.
Disney, Universal sue Midjourney over unlicensed AI image use
In their suit, Disney and Universal point out that Midjourney builds a powerful image generation system by crawling through the vast amount of visual content on the internet, but that this process “grossly infringes on the legal rights of copyright holders.” Disney legal counsel Mark Whitmore said, “This isn’t innovation, it’s predation, and Midjourney modeled itself on the fruits of the creators’ labors without ever obtaining any licenses or being paid for it.” A Universal Pictures spokesperson also added, “We are not against the development of AI, but we are against the theft of content without authorization. This practice is both illegal and undermines the fairness of the industry.” The case makes a number of claims, including an immediate ban on Midjourney’s continued use of the content in question, statutory damages for each infringement, as well as punitive damages, showing the two major studios’ tough stance on defending their IP.
Midjourney’s response
In the face of strong accusations, Midjourney released a short statement on June 4 in response. David Holz, the company’s founder and CEO, said that the company “never stores or directly distributes any copyrighted images” and that its AI tools “generate brand new images” through mathematical modeling and pattern recognition. Holtz emphasized, “Midjourney is not a copy factory, and our model does not reproduce any particular original image. It simply learns the artistic style and compositional logic to help users create unique visuals.” He said he was willing to talk to Disney and Universal, but insisted there was no “direct infringement” of the company’s technical principles or product logic.
The case has far-reaching implications
This is another major legal conflict between AI-generated content and traditional copyright. Legal experts pointed out that the case involves two core issues: first, whether AI constitutes a “substantial reproduction” of the original data during the training process; and second, whether AI-generated images belong to the category of “adaptation” or “re-creation”. “Elizabeth Kim, a professor of intellectual property law at UCLA, analyzed: “If the court finds that training an AI is itself an infringement, then all future models based on pre-existing images, audio, and text could be held accountable. This would change the logic at the root of the AI industry.” In addition, this case could redefine the fair use clause in copyright law. Once AI companies are forced to give up unlicensed data sources for training, their costs will increase dramatically, and the pace of technological innovation will be limited.
Artists, creators applaud, tech community divided
After the case came to light, the visual artist community and film and television practitioners were generally supportive. Los Angeles illustrator Kira Malek said, “I’ve seen a lot of people use Midjourney to generate images in my style and not give a dime to the originator. It’s a good sign that big companies are defending their rights.” However, there are also technology developers to express concern that traditional companies trying to interfere with the development of emerging technologies with the old model may lead to AI research into the regulatory quagmire. The Reddit platform topic “#AIrtDebate” (#AIArtDebate) quickly on the hot list, and netizens are controversial. Someone left a comment saying, “This could be the ‘Napoleonic moment’ of generative AI – either find a balance or lose both.”
Where to go next
The court has now scheduled the first hearing for the end of July. Legal observers believe that unless Midjourney voluntarily seeks a settlement, the lawsuit will continue for months, if not years. Meanwhile, other AI companies such as Adobe, Meta, OpenAI, and others are watching the developments closely and have been re-examining their training data sources and content compliance. For their part, Disney and Universal have emphasized that they are not opposed to AI, but rather want to “establish a framework for lawful licensing” to ensure that creators’ rights are not disregarded. As the plaintiffs’ attorneys summarized, “We need to establish a bottom line for this new era of creativity. If copyrights can be arbitrarily absorbed by AI without protection, then the arts will lose their ground for survival.” As this case moves forward, the game between the AI industry and the cultural and creative industries will also become more intense, and the outcome of this lawsuit may become an important milestone in the global demarcation of the boundaries between AI and copyright.
Leave a comment