How the Disney-Midjourney Lawsuit Could Reshape the Battle Over AI and Copyright

On Wednesday, the ongoing feud between Hollywood and the AI sector intensified significantly as Disney and Universal filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against Midjourney, a leading AI image generator. The two major film studios claim that Midjourney enables its users to shamelessly replicate and use their iconic characters, like Shrek and Spider-Man. In a public statement, Horacio Gutierrez, Disney’s chief legal officer, stated, “Piracy is piracy, and the fact that it’s carried out by an AI company does not render it any less infringing.

The legal action questions a key presumption in the AI sector: whether it’s acceptable to learn from copyrighted works based on the concept of fair use. The outcome of this case may significantly impact not only the future of AI but also the film industry, namely Hollywood.

As a passionate filmgoer, I firmly believe that the only force powerful enough to halt AI firms in their current trajectory is the law. Ed Newton-Rex, CEO of Fairly Trained, a nonprofit organization, shares this sentiment. His organization offers certifications for AI models trained on licensed data. In simpler terms, he’s saying that if ongoing legal battles are victorious, it could potentially prevent AI companies from misusing people’s life’s work.

A growing backlash against AI training norms

AI firms educate their systems using massive data collections gathered from various online sources. Although many of these businesses have been reluctant to acknowledge that they gather copyrighted content, there are currently numerous AI-related copyright lawsuits in the U.S., with allegations of such practices. Midjourney, an platform used by millions of registered users to produce images based on prompts, is embroiled in a class action lawsuit spearheaded by artists like Kelly McKernan. McKernan and other artists discovered that users were using the artist’s name as a keyword within Midjourney to generate eerily similar works of art. “These companies are making substantial profits from our uncompensated work,” they asserted to TIME in 2023.

Over the past several years, Hollywood has chosen to stay neutral in discussions about artificial intelligence, yet their stance has been somewhat unclear. In contract negotiations held in 2023, AI became a key point of disagreement between unions like SAG-AFTRA and producers, who presented an innovative proposal regarding AI. This proposal aimed to utilize “digital doppelgangers” to populate the backdrops of movie scenes.

Although some in Hollywood anticipate that AI could streamline and lower costs in filmmaking, there is a significant number who express anxiety about the AI sector’s exploitation of copyrighted content. This apprehension has culminated in the Disney-Universal lawsuit, marking one of the first legal actions taken by Hollywood studios against an AI firm. The litigation aims for compensation and an immediate restraining order to halt Midjourney’s activities, as it raises concerns about AI-generated theft that could potentially disrupt the fundamental motivations underlying U.S. copyright law.

Midjourney did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Kim Harris, executive vice president and legal head of NBCU, stated that we’re taking this action today to safeguard the efforts of all artists whose work brings us enjoyment and motivation, as well as the substantial resources we dedicate to our content.

As a cinephile, I find myself captivated by Newton-Rex’s perspective on this lawsuit. It carries immense weight due to Disney and Universal’s colossal size, clout, and financial might. The more these titans of the American entertainment industry engage in this legal battle, the harder it becomes to overlook the straightforward reality at hand: “The bigger they come, the louder the truth rings,” as the saying goes.

In February, a court in Delaware ruled against an AI industry claim that it could replicate the content from Thomson Reuters for building a rival AI-driven legal platform, stating this was not covered under the “fair use” principle.

If Disney wins their lawsuit against Universal in a way that sets a significant precedent, it could significantly affect both the AI industry and Hollywood, according to Moonvalley AI video startup CEO Naeem Talukdar. This could potentially require many AI companies to completely revise their visual models using licensed content. On the other hand, if Hollywood receives clear legal guidance, they might speed up the adoption of AI models based on licensed content, such as those developed by Natasha Lyonne’s and Bryn Mooser’s Asteria Film Company.

Talukdar states, “These models are avoided like the plague due to the fear of being sued over their results later. If a particular ruling goes in a certain direction, I predict there will be a pause, followed by a surge of new model types that compensate creators. This, in turn, could lead to an influx of studios who can now use these models more openly.

A governmental loophole? 

It’s not surprising that AI companies are taking legal and policy actions to defend their rights. Specifically, they’re advocating for government policies that allow them to continue training their models without restrictions. In January, OpenAI submitted a letter to the White House, urging the preservation of their ability to use copyrighted material. This led to some rule changes around copyright, which in turn sparked an outpouring of Studio Ghibli-esque artwork on social media under the banner of “creative freedom.

In the United Kingdom, the government proposed a plan to grant AI companies permission to use any copyrighted material, unless rights holders had explicitly opted out. This move sparked strong opposition from figures like Paul McCartney and Dua Lipa. Last week, this legislation was vetoed for the fourth time by the House of Lords.

Newton-Rex indicates that the ongoing argument about AI and copyright isn’t likely to be settled quickly. He explains that multi-billion dollar AI companies have built their entire businesses on the premise that they can use people’s lifework as a foundation to compete against them, and he doubts they will easily relinquish this advantage due to a single lawsuit. However, he stresses that the filing of this lawsuit is “excellent news for creators worldwide.

Read More

2025-06-12 01:06