Midjourney doesn’t just want to defend itself against Hollywood. It now wants the studios to open their own AI cupboards.
The AI image company is asking for broader discovery in its copyright fight with major film studios, including Disney, Universal and Warner Bros. The studios accuse Midjourney of using protected characters and content without permission. Midjourney argues that if the studios claim AI harms their market, then their own use of AI matters too.
Midjourney turns the spotlight back on Hollywood
The core fight sounds simple: Hollywood says Midjourney copied its work. Midjourney says the court should also look at how Hollywood uses similar technology.
According to recent reporting, a judge had already ordered the studios to share information about their AI use, but only for consumer-facing images and videos. Midjourney now wants that limit widened because it says the studios shouldn’t get to select only the documents that support their claims.
That’s the interesting part.
The lawsuit started as a classic rights-holder-versus-tech-company clash. But it’s becoming something bigger: a fight over transparency. If studios use AI internally for concept art, marketing, pre-visualisation, pitch decks or production workflows, Midjourney wants those details in the record.
We think the real story here isn’t just whether Midjourney trained on protected content. It’s whether Hollywood can attack AI in court while also quietly using it in its own creative pipeline.
Why the studios sued Midjourney
Disney and Universal filed their lawsuit in June 2025, accusing Midjourney of copyright infringement linked to training data and AI-generated outputs. The case targeted images that allegedly resemble famous studio-owned characters and worlds.
Warner Bros. later filed its own case, alleging that Midjourney generated unauthorised images and videos featuring characters such as Superman, Bugs Bunny, Scooby-Doo and Wonder Woman.
The studios argue that Midjourney benefits from valuable entertainment IP without paying for it. Midjourney, like many AI companies, is expected to rely heavily on arguments around transformation, user prompts and fair use.
Here’s how the fight breaks down:
| Side | What they want | Why it matters |
| Hollywood studios | Stronger control over protected characters and visual IP | It could force AI companies into licensing deals |
| Midjourney | Broader access to studio AI-use records | It could weaken claims that AI only harms studios |
| Creators | Clearer rules for training data and outputs | It could affect artists, agencies and production teams |
| Courts | Evidence on market harm and AI workflows | It could shape future copyright cases |
Why AI discovery matters
Discovery is the legal process where both sides request documents, records and evidence. It can sound boring. It isn’t.
In AI cases, discovery can expose how companies train models, test outputs, handle copyrighted material and deploy tools internally. That’s why Midjourney’s request matters.
If the court lets Midjourney dig deeper, Hollywood studios may need to reveal more about their own generative AI experiments. That could include internal tools, vendor contracts, workflow documents or examples of AI-assisted creative work.
What we’re watching now is whether the court treats studio AI use as relevant to market harm. If the studios say Midjourney threatens their business, Midjourney will likely argue that Hollywood’s own AI adoption tells a more complicated story.
This is also about power
Hollywood has spent decades building some of the world’s most valuable characters. Disney, Universal and Warner Bros. don’t see those characters as internet culture. They see them as billion-dollar assets.
Midjourney sits on the other side of the new creative economy. It gives users fast, cheap image generation. That makes it powerful, but also legally exposed.
The tension is obvious.
Studios want AI companies to pay for the raw material that helped make the tools valuable. AI companies want flexibility to build and compete without clearing rights for every image scraped or referenced across the internet.
That’s why this case could push the industry toward licensing. We’ve already seen AI companies and content owners move toward paid partnerships, including image and media licensing deals. Our recent coverage of Getty Images and OpenAI’s partnership shows how fast the market is moving from scraping fights to commercial agreements.
What it means for South African creators
For South African readers, the bigger question is practical: what happens when AI tools become normal in creative work, but copyright rules remain unclear?
Local agencies, filmmakers, designers and content teams already use AI tools to speed up production. A small studio in Cape Town can now create pitch visuals that once required a much bigger budget. A marketer in Johannesburg can test campaign concepts in minutes.
That’s exciting. It’s also risky.
If global courts demand more transparency around AI training and usage, South African businesses may also need cleaner AI policies. That could mean:
- keeping records of which tools teams use;
- avoiding prompts that copy protected characters;
- checking commercial-use terms before publishing;
- building internal rules for AI-generated visuals;
- asking vendors whether they use licensed training data.
This matters because South African creators often depend on global platforms. A US court decision can quickly shape the tools available here, the terms attached to them and the risks clients ask agencies to carry.
The bigger AI-Hollywood fight is just starting
Hollywood isn’t anti-AI in a simple sense. Studios want AI’s speed, cost savings and creative flexibility. They just don’t want outside AI companies to profit from their characters without permission.
That’s why the Midjourney move feels sharp. It puts Hollywood’s own AI use under the microscope.
If studios use AI heavily behind the scenes, Midjourney may argue that AI is not just a threat to their market. It’s also part of their market. But if discovery shows limited or carefully licensed use, the studios could strengthen their case.
The court hasn’t decided the full copyright question yet. For now, the fight sits in the evidence phase, where both sides try to define what the court can see.
We think this case could become one of the clearest windows into how big entertainment companies really use AI. And once that window opens, the next question gets uncomfortable: who gets to use culture as training material, and who gets paid when they do?
FAQs
Why is Midjourney asking studios to reveal AI usage?
Midjourney wants evidence about how studios use generative AI internally. It says that information could matter if the studios claim AI tools harm their market.
Which studios are involved in the Midjourney lawsuit?
The fight involves major Hollywood players, including Disney, Universal and Warner Bros. The cases centre on alleged copyright infringement involving protected characters and visual content.
Why should South African creators care?
This case could shape the rules for AI-generated images, licensing and copyright risk. Local creators who use global AI tools may feel the impact through platform policies, client contracts and legal expectations.
The post Midjourney Wants Hollywood to Reveal Its AI Use in 2026 appeared first on Memeburn.