Midjourney Seeks Broad Discovery of Hollywood Studios' Internal AI Practices

Midjourney is pushing to expand the scope of document discovery in its ongoing copyright litigation with Disney, Universal, and Warner Bros., arguing that the studios should be required to disclose their internal use of generative AI — not merely the instances where that use resulted in consumer-facing content.

The legal dispute traces back to suits filed by Disney and Universal against the AI image-generation startup last year, alleging that Midjourney's models could produce likenesses of copyrighted characters, including Bart Simpson and Darth Vader. Warner Bros. followed with its own lawsuit shortly after. Midjourney has maintained that training its models on images of copyrighted characters falls within the bounds of fair use.

The current conflict centers on the discovery phase of litigation. A judge previously ruled that the studios must provide information about their generative AI usage, but only in cases where that usage led to content distributed to consumers. In its latest filing, Midjourney is seeking to overturn that limitation.

Midjourney argued the restriction "unfairly" allows 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."

The startup further contended that "documents [the studios] are withholding are precisely those that would reveal whether, behind closed doors, they are doing exactly what they are suing Midjourney for doing."

As a specific example, Midjourney's filing stated that if the studios are developing image-generating AI models "for internal use in storyboarding or ideating content for film or TV, that evidence would equally demonstrate that it is an industry custom, even among the studios themselves, to download and train AI on unlicensed copyrighted content."

In addition to seeking records of internal AI model development, Midjourney is also asking the studios to disclose all prompts they submitted to Midjourney's platform, along with the resulting outputs — not only the prompts that allegedly produced infringing images.

The studios' lead attorney, David Singer, previously characterized Midjourney's discovery requests as a "fishing expedition." Singer also said the studios "do not seek to stop AI technology or even shut down Midjourney's business," but rather "simply 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."

The dispute underscores a broader tension playing out across the entertainment and technology industries, as generative AI companies and traditional IP holders contest the legal boundaries of training data, fair use, and market harm — with the courts still working to establish durable standards.

How the judge rules on Midjourney's expanded discovery motion could shape the evidentiary terrain not only in this case, but in related copyright litigation involving AI developers and content owners more broadly.