Midjourney is pressing some of Hollywood’s biggest studios to disclose how they use artificial intelligence inside their own businesses, turning a major copyright lawsuit into a broader fight over transparency in the entertainment industry’s AI shift.
The image-generation company has asked a federal judge in California to order Disney, Universal and Warner Bros. Discovery to hand over more internal records about their AI systems, business plans, research, training materials and production-related AI work. The request comes as the studios continue to accuse Midjourney of building a service that can generate unauthorized versions of famous characters from their films and television franchises.
Midjourney argues that the studios’ own use of AI could be relevant to the case. The company says the plaintiffs should not be allowed to challenge AI training and output practices in court while keeping their own internal AI activity largely out of view.
The dispute is now before U.S. District Judge John A. Kronstadt in the Central District of California. Midjourney filed a motion on June 29 asking the judge to review an earlier order that limited how much AI-related material the studios must produce during discovery. A hearing on the issue is scheduled for August 17, 2026.
A Copyright Case Expands
The legal battle began as a direct copyright case. Disney, Universal and related studios accused Midjourney of using their protected works to train its AI systems and of allowing users to create images and videos featuring well-known characters without permission.
The studios have pointed to characters such as Darth Vader, Elsa, Shrek, Spider-Man, the Minions and other valuable entertainment properties. Warner Bros. Discovery later brought its own case, citing characters including Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Bugs Bunny and Scooby-Doo.
The studios claim Midjourney’s tools make it possible for paying users to create polished images that resemble protected characters and scenes. They argue that this harms their rights, weakens control over their intellectual property and creates a market for unauthorized derivative content.
Midjourney denies that the case is that simple. The company has leaned on fair use arguments, saying copyright law does not give rights holders complete control over every technological use of creative works. It also wants to show whether the studios are using AI in ways that resemble the conduct they are challenging.
That is why discovery has become so important. Midjourney is not only defending its own technology. It is trying to make the studios’ internal AI strategies part of the courtroom record.
What Midjourney Wants Disclosed
Midjourney is seeking access to a wide range of AI-related studio materials. Those could include internal AI business plans, technical reports, model information, training datasets, research documents, board presentations and records showing how AI tools are being used in entertainment development or production.
The company wants information beyond consumer-facing tools. An earlier order allowed discovery into AI products that studios make available to customers or users. Midjourney says that is too narrow because it leaves out internal AI systems that may be used for storyboarding, concept art, visual development, marketing, editing support or other creative and business functions.
Its legal argument is built around relevance. If studios are using generative AI internally, Midjourney says those records may help show how the entertainment industry itself understands AI training, AI output and fair use.
Midjourney attorney Bobby Ghajar made the point directly in court papers, writing, “If Plaintiffs are doing the very thing they seek to punish,” that evidence would matter to the company’s defenses.
The argument also touches on the legal idea of unclean hands, which can arise when a plaintiff seeks relief while allegedly engaging in similar conduct. Midjourney is effectively saying that Hollywood’s own AI behavior may affect how the court should evaluate the studios’ claims.
Studios Push Back
The studios have opposed Midjourney’s request and argue that the company is trying to shift attention away from the central issue in the case. In their view, the lawsuit is about Midjourney’s alleged copying and its ability to generate unauthorized images of copyrighted characters, not about every AI experiment happening inside Hollywood.
Studio lawyers have described the discovery demand as overly broad and unnecessary. They argue that internal AI projects do not decide whether Midjourney used copyrighted works without permission or allowed users to create infringing content.
The studios also say they are not trying to block AI technology as a whole. Their claim is narrower: they want Midjourney to stop generating or helping users generate content that copies their movies, television shows and characters.
That position reflects a delicate balance for Hollywood. Major studios are increasingly interested in AI for production, marketing, localization, visual effects, workflow management and audience analysis. At the same time, they are trying to protect their libraries, characters and franchises from being replicated by outside AI platforms.
Why Hollywood’s AI Use Matters
The fight comes at a time when AI has become one of the most sensitive issues in entertainment. Writers, actors, animators, visual artists and post-production workers have all raised concerns about how generative AI may affect jobs, creative credit and ownership.
The studios themselves are under pressure from both sides. They want to control unauthorized AI uses of their intellectual property, but they also want to explore how AI can reduce costs, speed up production and support new forms of content creation.
That makes Midjourney’s request especially uncomfortable for the plaintiffs. If the court allows broader discovery, the studios may have to disclose internal AI material that could reveal how deeply they are already experimenting with the same technology they are challenging in court.
Those records could include sensitive competitive information. They could also become relevant in future lawsuits, labor negotiations and public debates about whether Hollywood is using AI responsibly.
The Fair Use Question
At the heart of the case is a question that courts across the country are still trying to answer: when does AI training become copyright infringement, and when can it be protected as fair use?
AI companies often argue that training models on large datasets is transformative because the systems learn patterns rather than simply storing and reproducing works. Rights holders argue that their copyrighted material is being used without permission to build commercial products that can compete with or dilute their own creations.
Midjourney’s position is that the studios’ own AI practices could help clarify how the industry views that line. If Hollywood is using copyrighted material in AI development, even internally, Midjourney may argue that the studios are taking a different position in business than they are taking in court.
The studios are likely to argue that internal experimentation is legally different from offering a public subscription tool that can generate images of protected characters at scale. That distinction could become important as the case moves forward.
A Ruling With Wider Impact
The August hearing could influence more than this one lawsuit. If the judge sides with Midjourney, entertainment companies and other copyright owners may face greater pressure to disclose their own AI systems when they sue AI developers. That could make future copyright cases more complicated for studios, publishers, record labels and media companies that are both AI critics and AI users.
If the judge sides with the studios, the case may remain more narrowly focused on Midjourney’s training data, output behavior and alleged infringement. That would help rights holders pursue AI lawsuits without opening their own internal AI plans to broad discovery.
Either way, the dispute shows how fast the AI copyright debate is changing. Hollywood wants stronger protection against AI-generated copies of its most valuable characters. Midjourney wants the court to examine whether the studios are also using AI in ways that deserve scrutiny.
What began as a case about images of famous characters has now become a test of how much transparency courts will demand from both sides of the AI economy.
Comments