Loading
Technology
6 min read
Areas of Expertise :
Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning, Copyright, Intellectual Property, Entertainment Industry
Published Date:
Last Modified Date:
Jurisdiction:
Federal. Ninth Circuit
Disney and Universal v. Midjourney is a pending federal copyright lawsuit that addresses emerging legal questions at the intersection of generative artificial intelligence, U.S. copyright law, and the commercial use of creative works. Brought by major motion picture studios and affiliated entities, the case examines whether AI-based image generation systems may lawfully rely on copyrighted visual materials during model training and whether certain AI-generated images implicate protected characters, artwork, or distinctive visual elements.
For attorneys, litigators, and in-house counsel, the matter offers an early view into how federal courts may analyze disputes involving AI training methodologies, visual similarity standards, fair use defenses, and potential liability associated with widely deployed generative technologies. At the same time, the litigation provides a practical reference point for non-legal audiences seeking to understand how established copyright doctrines are being tested in the context of rapidly evolving AI systems.
On June 11, 2025, multiple entertainment companies affiliated with The Walt Disney Company and NBCUniversal, including DreamWorks Animation, filed a federal copyright infringement action against Midjourney, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The case is captioned Disney Enterprises, Inc., et al. v. Midjourney, Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-05275 (JAK-AJR), and is commonly referenced in public reporting as Disney and Universal v. Midjourney.
The complaint alleges that Midjourney trained its generative AI image model using studio-owned copyrighted images without authorization or licensing. According to the pleading, the alleged conduct occurred at scale and formed part of the training process for a commercially available image-generation platform. The lawsuit is among the first high-profile U.S. actions in which major film studios directly challenged the training practices of a generative AI image developer.
In their complaint, the plaintiffs assert that Midjourney’s system is capable of producing images that resemble well-known fictional characters, scenes, and visual elements protected under U.S. copyright law. They contend that certain outputs raise questions of substantial similarity and potential derivative use, particularly where recognizable characters or distinctive artistic features appear in generated images.
The pleading also emphasizes that Midjourney operates a paid subscription service, linking the asserted copyright concerns to ongoing commercial activity. Together, these allegations frame the dispute around both the sourcing of training data and the nature of the images produced by the AI system.
On August 6, 2025, Midjourney filed its Answer, denying the plaintiffs’ allegations of copyright infringement and disputing their characterization of the technology. The company contests claim that its models reproduce, store, or output copyrighted works in a legally actionable manner.
In its court filings and public statements reported by the press, Midjourney has likened the operation of generative AI systems to human learning through exposure to large numbers of images, rather than the copying of individual works. The company has indicated that fair use principles will be central to its defense, while acknowledging that courts are still developing how traditional copyright doctrines apply to generative AI training and outputs.
On November 4, 2025, the court consolidated the Disney and Universal action with a separate copyright lawsuit filed by Warner Bros. Entertainment entities against Midjourney. The Disney action was designated as the lead case, and the Warner Bros. matter was consolidated and terminated as a separate docket, with all further proceedings continuing in the lead action. Following consolidation, the litigation has proceeded as a unified studio action addressing overlapping allegations concerning AI training practices and AI-generated image outputs.
On November 14, 2025, the court entered a scheduling order governing discovery, expert disclosures, and motion practice. Under the current schedule, initial expert disclosures are set for October 14, 2026, followed by rebuttal expert disclosures later that month, with expert discovery extending into November 2026. Dispositive motion deadlines extend into late 2026.
As of this writing, no settlement, dismissal, or dispositive ruling has been publicly reported. The case remains in its pretrial phase, during which the court is expected to address issues involving copyright standards, AI training methodologies, and image similarity analysis.
Court:
United States District Court for the Central District of California
Case Name:
Disney Enterprises, Inc. et al. v. Midjourney, Inc.
Copyright Infringement
Algorithm Development
Licensing
Film Licensing
3D Rendering
Disney and Universal v. Midjourney is a pending federal copyright lawsuit that addresses emerging legal questions at the intersection of generative artificial intelligence, U.S. copyright law, and the commercial use of creative works. Brought by major motion picture studios and affiliated entities, the case examines whether AI-based image generation systems may lawfully rely on copyrighted visual materials during model training and whether certain AI-generated images implicate protected characters, artwork, or distinctive visual elements.
For attorneys, litigators, and in-house counsel, the matter offers an early view into how federal courts may analyze disputes involving AI training methodologies, visual similarity standards, fair use defenses, and potential liability associated with widely deployed generative technologies. At the same time, the litigation provides a practical reference point for non-legal audiences seeking to understand how established copyright doctrines are being tested in the context of rapidly evolving AI systems.
On June 11, 2025, multiple entertainment companies affiliated with The Walt Disney Company and NBCUniversal, including DreamWorks Animation, filed a federal copyright infringement action against Midjourney, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The case is captioned Disney Enterprises, Inc., et al. v. Midjourney, Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-05275 (JAK-AJR), and is commonly referenced in public reporting as Disney and Universal v. Midjourney.
The complaint alleges that Midjourney trained its generative AI image model using studio-owned copyrighted images without authorization or licensing. According to the pleading, the alleged conduct occurred at scale and formed part of the training process for a commercially available image-generation platform. The lawsuit is among the first high-profile U.S. actions in which major film studios directly challenged the training practices of a generative AI image developer.
In their complaint, the plaintiffs assert that Midjourney’s system is capable of producing images that resemble well-known fictional characters, scenes, and visual elements protected under U.S. copyright law. They contend that certain outputs raise questions of substantial similarity and potential derivative use, particularly where recognizable characters or distinctive artistic features appear in generated images.
The pleading also emphasizes that Midjourney operates a paid subscription service, linking the asserted copyright concerns to ongoing commercial activity. Together, these allegations frame the dispute around both the sourcing of training data and the nature of the images produced by the AI system.
On August 6, 2025, Midjourney filed its Answer, denying the plaintiffs’ allegations of copyright infringement and disputing their characterization of the technology. The company contests claim that its models reproduce, store, or output copyrighted works in a legally actionable manner.
In its court filings and public statements reported by the press, Midjourney has likened the operation of generative AI systems to human learning through exposure to large numbers of images, rather than the copying of individual works. The company has indicated that fair use principles will be central to its defense, while acknowledging that courts are still developing how traditional copyright doctrines apply to generative AI training and outputs.
On November 4, 2025, the court consolidated the Disney and Universal action with a separate copyright lawsuit filed by Warner Bros. Entertainment entities against Midjourney. The Disney action was designated as the lead case, and the Warner Bros. matter was consolidated and terminated as a separate docket, with all further proceedings continuing in the lead action. Following consolidation, the litigation has proceeded as a unified studio action addressing overlapping allegations concerning AI training practices and AI-generated image outputs.
On November 14, 2025, the court entered a scheduling order governing discovery, expert disclosures, and motion practice. Under the current schedule, initial expert disclosures are set for October 14, 2026, followed by rebuttal expert disclosures later that month, with expert discovery extending into November 2026. Dispositive motion deadlines extend into late 2026.
As of this writing, no settlement, dismissal, or dispositive ruling has been publicly reported. The case remains in its pretrial phase, during which the court is expected to address issues involving copyright standards, AI training methodologies, and image similarity analysis.
These experts are typically engaged to explain how generative image models are trained, how datasets are assembled and processed, and how model architectures operate in practice. Their analysis may address whether models retain copyrighted material, how outputs are generated from learned statistical relationships, and how technical design choices relate to claims of copying or transformation.
Image comparison specialists may assist in evaluating visual similarities between AI-generated images and copyrighted works. Using structured comparison methods, these experts help courts assess whether similarities are legally significant under applicable copyright standards.
Copyright law experts often provide context on licensing practices, character protection, derivative works doctrine, and the treatment of emerging technologies under U.S. copyright law. Their analysis may inform fair use arguments, originality assessments, and potential market effects.
If financial impact becomes contested, economic experts may analyze alleged licensing losses, revenue attribution, or claims of market displacement. Such evaluations typically rely on economic modeling and industry data rather than assumptions of direct harm.
Industry experts may offer insight into how studios manage intellectual property portfolios, licensing programs, and brand protection strategies, including whether AI-generated imagery intersects with established licensing and merchandising markets.
Disney and Universal v. Midjourney reflects an ongoing judicial examination of how U.S. copyright law may apply to generative artificial intelligence. While the litigation has not yet reached a final outcome, it underscores broader legal questions facing courts, rights holders, and technology developers regarding the use of copyrighted materials in AI systems. The eventual resolution may contribute to future guidance on AI training practices, output evaluation, and intellectual property considerations.
Is Disney and Universal v. Midjourney a concluded case?
No. The lawsuit remains pending, and no final judgment, settlement, or dismissal has been publicly reported.
What issues are being examined in the case?
The case examines whether the use of copyrighted materials in AI training and the generation of certain images raise copyright concerns under U.S. law.
Does the case focus on AI training, AI outputs, or both?
Both. The plaintiffs raise issues related to training datasets as well as the characteristics of AI-generated images.
Why is this case relevant to AI developers and legal practitioners?
The litigation illustrates how existing copyright principles may be applied to generative AI technologies and may inform future legal and compliance considerations.
When might the case be resolved?
There is no publicly available timeline. Federal copyright cases involving complex technical and evidentiary issues often take several years to conclude.
These experts are typically engaged to explain how generative image models are trained, how datasets are assembled and processed, and how model architectures operate in practice. Their analysis may address whether models retain copyrighted material, how outputs are generated from learned statistical relationships, and how technical design choices relate to claims of copying or transformation.
Image comparison specialists may assist in evaluating visual similarities between AI-generated images and copyrighted works. Using structured comparison methods, these experts help courts assess whether similarities are legally significant under applicable copyright standards.
Copyright law experts often provide context on licensing practices, character protection, derivative works doctrine, and the treatment of emerging technologies under U.S. copyright law. Their analysis may inform fair use arguments, originality assessments, and potential market effects.
If financial impact becomes contested, economic experts may analyze alleged licensing losses, revenue attribution, or claims of market displacement. Such evaluations typically rely on economic modeling and industry data rather than assumptions of direct harm.
Industry experts may offer insight into how studios manage intellectual property portfolios, licensing programs, and brand protection strategies, including whether AI-generated imagery intersects with established licensing and merchandising markets.
Disney and Universal v. Midjourney reflects an ongoing judicial examination of how U.S. copyright law may apply to generative artificial intelligence. While the litigation has not yet reached a final outcome, it underscores broader legal questions facing courts, rights holders, and technology developers regarding the use of copyrighted materials in AI systems. The eventual resolution may contribute to future guidance on AI training practices, output evaluation, and intellectual property considerations.
Is Disney and Universal v. Midjourney a concluded case?
No. The lawsuit remains pending, and no final judgment, settlement, or dismissal has been publicly reported.
What issues are being examined in the case?
The case examines whether the use of copyrighted materials in AI training and the generation of certain images raise copyright concerns under U.S. law.
Does the case focus on AI training, AI outputs, or both?
Both. The plaintiffs raise issues related to training datasets as well as the characteristics of AI-generated images.
Why is this case relevant to AI developers and legal practitioners?
The litigation illustrates how existing copyright principles may be applied to generative AI technologies and may inform future legal and compliance considerations.
When might the case be resolved?
There is no publicly available timeline. Federal copyright cases involving complex technical and evidentiary issues often take several years to conclude.
Copyright Infringement
Algorithm Development
Licensing
Film Licensing
3D Rendering
Technology
Patent, +4
Technology
Artificial Intelligence, +4
Technology