Another AI copyright case has been filed with Disney and Universal suing AI Company Midjourney for Copyright Theft. Disney and Universal filed a 110-page lawsuit bringing direct and secondary copyright infringment against Midjourney, Inc.Â
In a landmark legal action that could reshape the artificial intelligence industry, Disney and Universal filed a comprehensive lawsuit against AI image generator Midjourney on June 11, 2025. This 110-page complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in Los Angeles, represents the first time major Hollywood studios have taken legal action against a generative AI company.
The lawsuit brings together seven major entertainment entities under the Disney and Universal umbrellas, including Disney Enterprises, Marvel Characters, Lucasfilm, Universal City Studios Productions, and DreamWorks Animation. This unprecedented alliance demonstrates the seriousness with which Hollywood’s biggest players view the threat posed by AI companies that allegedly use copyrighted material without permission.
At the heart of the case lies a fundamental dispute over how AI companies train their models. The studios claim Midjourney stole “countless” copyrighted works to train its software, enabling users to generate images of beloved characters ranging from Star Wars‘ Darth Vader to Universal’s Minions from Despicable Me. The complaint includes extensive visual evidence showing side-by-side comparisons of original copyrighted characters and AI-generated versions that closely resemble them.
The studios argue that Midjourney’s business model constitutes systematic copyright infringement on a massive scale. They contend that the San Francisco-based company scraped millions of images from across the internet to build its training database, including countless Disney and Universal properties, without seeking permission or compensation. This approach was acknowledged by Midjourney CEO David Holz in a 2022 interview when he described building the company’s database through what he called “a big scrape of the Internet” and admitted difficulty in tracking image sources at that scale. This practice raises significant questions about fair use under U.S. copyright law.
What makes this case particularly significant is the allegation that Midjourney continued its practices despite receiving formal requests to stop. The studios claim they sent cease-and-desist letters to Midjourney’s legal counsel asking the company to halt the generation of images featuring their copyrighted characters and to implement technological measures to prevent such infringement. According to the complaint, Midjourney not only ignored these requests but continued releasing new versions of its service with even higher-quality outputs.
The financial stakes in this case are substantial. Midjourney reportedly generated $300 million in revenue last year while attracting millions of subscribers. Meanwhile, Disney and Universal are seeking the maximum statutory damages of $150,000 per infringed work. With more than 150 works listed as allegedly infringed, the potential damages could exceed $20 million, not including additional remedies and legal costs.
The legal arguments presented by Disney and Universal reflect broader tensions in the AI industry over copyright and fair use. Disney’s chief legal officer emphasized that the company supports AI technology when used responsibly but maintains that piracy remains piracy regardless of whether it’s done by an AI company. The studios argue that Midjourney’s actions threaten the fundamental incentives provided by copyright law that encourage creative investment and innovation.
Midjourney has largely remained silent regarding the lawsuit. According to the complaint, Disney received a response that Midjourney was “reviewing the letter” but never heard back, while Universal reported that Midjourney did not respond to their cease-and-desist letter at all. When asked for comment by multiple news outlets, Midjourney representatives did not respond. The only public statement came from CEO David Holz during a weekly conference call with users, where he said he couldn’t discuss legal matters but believed the company would survive for a long time.
The case emerges within a broader landscape of copyright litigation targeting AI companies. Major publishers, including The New York Times, have sued OpenAI and Microsoft, while music industry entities have filed cases against AI music generators. Getty Images has been engaged in a lengthy legal battle with Stability AI. However, the Disney-Universal lawsuit represents the first major action by Hollywood studios, potentially signaling a more aggressive approach by the entertainment industry toward protecting its intellectual property.
Industry observers note that this lawsuit could establish crucial precedents for the AI sector. The outcome may determine whether current AI training practices constitute fair use under copyright law, what obligations AI companies have to implement content filtering systems, and how courts will balance innovation incentives with creator rights. The case also specifically seeks to prevent Midjourney from launching its upcoming video generation service without appropriate copyright protections, suggesting the stakes extend beyond current image generation capabilities.
The entertainment industry’s response has been largely supportive of the lawsuit. The Motion Picture Associationexpressed backing for the legal action, emphasizing that copyright protection forms the backbone of the industry. Similarly, the Recording Industry Association of America endorsed the case as representing a critical stand for human creativity and responsible innovation.
This legal battle ultimately reflects the tension between rapid AI advancement and established intellectual property frameworks. As AI companies have raced to develop increasingly sophisticated tools capable of generating Hollywood-quality content, questions about the source and legitimacy of their training data have intensified. The Disney-Universal lawsuit represents an attempt by some of the industry’s most powerful players to establish clear boundaries around how their creative works can be used in the age of artificial intelligence.
The resolution of this case will likely influence not only how AI companies approach training data acquisition but also how Congress and regulators think about AI governance more broadly. Whether resolved through trial or settlement, the outcome could fundamentally alter the relationship between the technology and entertainment industries, potentially requiring AI companies to seek licenses for copyrighted training material or implement more robust filtering systems to prevent the generation of infringing content.
