The legal battle between Midjourney and the Hollywood studios Disney, Universal and Warner Bros. Discovery has evolved into far more than a conventional copyright dispute. While the studios accuse the AI company of using copyrighted characters and creative works to train its image generation models without permission, Midjourney has launched an unexpected counterstrategy: it wants the studios to reveal how they use artificial intelligence themselves.
As a result, what began as a lawsuit about AI training could become a landmark case defining how transparent companies must be about their own AI systems.
The background to the dispute
Disney and Universal filed their lawsuit against Midjourney in June 2025. Warner Bros. Discovery later joined with similar allegations. Together, the studios argue that Midjourney trained its models on copyrighted material and allows users to generate images that closely resemble well-known characters such as Darth Vader, Elsa, the Minions, Batman, Superman, Bugs Bunny and Shrek.
According to the studios, this infringes both copyright and trademark law. In addition to seeking financial damages, they are asking for injunctions and detailed disclosures about Midjourney’s training data and commercial profits.
The case is now widely regarded as one of the world’s most significant copyright lawsuits involving generative AI.
Midjourney’s counteroffensive
Rather than simply defending itself against the allegations, Midjourney has adopted a far more proactive legal strategy.
During the discovery phase of the case, the company is seeking extensive information about the studios’ own use of artificial intelligence.
Midjourney argues that Disney, Universal and Warner Bros. should disclose which generative AI systems they use internally, what policies govern those systems, which AI research projects are underway and how AI is already being used across production, development and creative workflows.
The move serves several purposes at once: legal, strategic and public relations.
Discovery has become the real battleground
Discovery has emerged as one of the most important aspects of the case. Unlike many European legal systems, US civil litigation allows courts to require both parties to disclose extensive internal documents if they are considered relevant to the proceedings.
This is precisely where Midjourney sees an opportunity.
The company argues that the studios’ own AI activities may be relevant to the broader context of the dispute. If the studios themselves are heavily investing in generative AI or developing comparable technologies, Midjourney believes this could help provide important context for evaluating the claims against it. The studios reject this argument, insisting that their internal AI projects are confidential trade secrets and have no bearing on whether Midjourney infringed their intellectual property rights.
The court has so far limited Midjourney’s request
At this stage, Midjourney has only achieved limited success.
A US magistrate judge significantly narrowed the scope of the requested disclosures. Under the current ruling, the studios must provide information only about AI applications that are visible to consumers. Internal research projects, development work and technical details of their AI strategies remain protected for now.
Midjourney has challenged that decision and has asked the district judge overseeing the case to broaden the scope of discovery. The company continues to seek access to a much wider range of internal AI documentation.
Whether the court will ultimately grant that request remains uncertain.
Why Midjourney wants this information
The company’s strategy is multifaceted.
First, Midjourney hopes to demonstrate how extensively major entertainment companies are already embracing generative AI. While this would not automatically undermine the copyright claims against Midjourney, it could influence the wider public debate surrounding AI in the creative industries.
Secondly, internal documents could reveal how the studios themselves approach issues such as training data, copyright, model development and AI governance. Such information could prove valuable in preparing Midjourney’s legal defence.
Finally, discovery places additional pressure on the plaintiffs. Companies that challenge another organisation’s AI practices may ultimately be required to reveal a great deal about their own.
More than a dispute over images
The lawsuit reflects a much broader shift across the AI industry.
Until recently, the debate centred primarily on whether AI models could lawfully be trained on copyrighted material. Increasingly, however, another question is taking centre stage: how transparent should companies be about the way they build, train and deploy AI systems?
Discovery proceedings may ultimately require organisations to disclose not only training methods but also internal governance policies, documentation practices and AI oversight processes.
As a result, comprehensive AI documentation is becoming increasingly important.
What businesses can learn
Regardless of how the case is ultimately decided, it already offers several valuable lessons.
Organisations should be able to document which AI models they use, the legal basis for processing data, the governance policies that apply and how human oversight is maintained.
Large organisations, in particular, often operate numerous AI systems across different departments. Without central governance, it becomes increasingly difficult to demonstrate exactly how those systems are being used if legal scrutiny arises.
The Midjourney case illustrates that AI governance is no longer simply a compliance issue. It is rapidly becoming a strategic capability that may prove critical in future litigation.
A case with far-reaching implications
The legal battle between Midjourney and the major Hollywood studios is likely to continue for some time. Yet it has already become clear that the dispute is no longer simply about individual images or famous fictional characters.
At its core, the case is about establishing the rules that will govern the next generation of artificial intelligence.
How far should disclosure obligations extend in AI litigation? Which information should remain protected as confidential commercial knowledge? And how much transparency can courts require when companies accuse one another of misconduct involving generative AI?
The answers will matter far beyond Midjourney or Hollywood. They are likely to influence how software companies, publishers, media organisations and businesses across many industries document, govern and defend their AI systems in the years ahead.
