Midjourney Asks Judges to Force Disney, Universal, and Warner to Reveal How They Use AI Internally
Midjourney has requested a federal judge to overturn an order that limited the collection of evidence regarding the AI practices of Disney, Universal, and Warner Bros. Discovery, arguing that the documents so far excluded could demonstrate that the studios train their models on copyrighted content, according to Variety.
Disney and Universal sued Midjourney last year for copyright infringement, contesting the image generator's ability to produce accurate portrayals of characters like Bart Simpson, Darth Vader, Superman, and Batman. Warner Bros. Discovery filed a separate lawsuit a few months later. Midjourney defends itself by arguing that training AI models on copyrighted images constitutes fair use and that the studios themselves would adopt the same practices.
The Battle Over Evidence Collection
On June 15, 2026, Magistrate Judge Joel Richlin ruled that the studios should provide only information related to their consumer-facing AI applications as admissible evidence, excluding data on internal use of the technology. Midjourney has now filed a motion with Federal Judge John Kronstadt to overturn that order and obtain a broader collection of evidence.
The company is asking the studios to produce business plans on AI, research reports, training datasets, model weights, and presentations used for board meetings. It also requests that the studios disclose all prompts used on the Midjourney platform and the corresponding generated outputs, not just those that would have produced the images contested in the lawsuit.
Midjourney's attorney, Bobby Ghajar, argued that the requested evidence is central to the company's fair use and unclean hands defenses: "If the studios are doing exactly what they seek to punish, that evidence goes to the heart of Midjourney's defenses based on fair use and unclean hands." The thesis is that if the studios are developing internal generative AI models for uses like storyboarding or content ideation, this would demonstrate that training AI on unlicensed material is common practice in the industry, not exclusive to Midjourney.
The Studios' Response
The studios' lawyer, David Singer, described Midjourney's request for evidence as an attempt to distract from the violations alleged against the company. Singer clarified the studios' position: "The studios do not intend to stop AI technology or to shut down Midjourney's operations. They simply ask that Midjourney stop copying their films and TV series and cease distributing, publicly displaying, and publicly performing derivative works that include copies of the studios' famous characters without permission."
The federal judge's decision on this motion could set a precedent regarding what type of information is admissible in future disputes between AI generators and copyright holders, a key issue still pending Judge Kronstadt's ruling.