AI startup Midjourney has filed a request with the court to compel three Hollywood studios—The Walt Disney Company, Universal Pictures, and Warner Bros.—to produce broader documentation about their use of generative AI as part of ongoing copyright lawsuits. The move is tied to disputes in which the studios allege Midjourney infringed their copyrights.
Case background
The litigation began last year when Disney and Universal sued Midjourney for alleged copyright infringement, asserting that the startup's image-generation models could produce images of characters the studios own, such as Bart Simpson and Darth Vader. A few months later, Warner Bros. also filed suit against Midjourney.
Midjourney contends that training its models on images of copyrighted characters is permissible under the doctrine of fair use.
Dispute over the scope of discovery
The current disagreement centers on what documents the studios must provide during discovery. A prior judicial ruling required the studios to supply information about their generative AI usage, but limited that obligation to instances that resulted in "consumer-facing" videos and images.
In its latest filing, Midjourney asks the court to remove or expand that limitation. The startup argues the restriction "unfairly" permits the studios "to cherry-pick only those documents they believe support their market harm claims while depriving Midjourney of documents that would support its defenses."
Midjourney further asserts that the documents the studios are withholding are exactly the ones that could reveal whether, behind closed doors, the studios are doing the same things for which they are suing Midjourney—namely downloading and training AI on unlicensed copyrighted content.
Examples and specific requests
Midjourney alleges that if studios are developing image-generating AI models for internal use—such as storyboarding or ideating film or TV content—that evidence would demonstrate an industry custom, including among the studios themselves, to download and train AI on unlicensed copyrighted material.
The startup also seeks production of all prompts the studios used with Midjourney and the resulting outputs, not only those prompts and outputs that allegedly produced infringing images.
Studios' response
The studios' lead attorney, David Singer, previously described Midjourney's demands as part of a "fishing expedition." Singer said the studios are not trying to stop AI technology or shut down Midjourney's business; rather, they want Midjourney to stop copying their movies and TV shows and to stop distributing, publicly displaying, publicly performing, and creating derivative works that include copies of their famous characters without authorization.
Why this matters
The dispute's stakes go beyond the immediate case: the court's decision about how broadly studios must disclose their own AI practices could set a precedent for industry transparency and shape defendants' ability to mount fair-use defenses. Midjourney argues broader discovery could expose common industry practices; the studios maintain the discovery should be limited to material directly relevant to their infringement claims.
The litigation is ongoing, and the court's forthcoming rulings will determine the ultimate scope of document production in the case.
