Midjourney, the artificial intelligence startup behind the popular image-generation tool, has filed a motion in a US court to compel three major Hollywood studios — Disney, Universal and Warner Bros — to disclose how they themselves use generative AI. The move is part of an ongoing copyright infringement lawsuit that could have significant implications for the UK's creative and technology sectors.
Disney and Universal originally sued Midjourney last year, alleging that its models could produce images of iconic copyrighted characters such as Bart Simpson and Darth Vader. Warner Bros later joined the legal action. Midjourney has defended its practices under the US fair use doctrine, arguing that training AI on publicly available images does not constitute infringement.
The current dispute centres on the scope of document discovery. A judge previously ruled that the studios must hand over information about their generative AI use only when it produces 'consumer-facing' videos or images. Midjourney now wants that restriction lifted, claiming it allows the studios to 'cherry-pick' documents that support their claims of market harm while withholding evidence that could bolster the startup's defence.
In its latest filing, Midjourney asserts that the withheld documents 'would reveal whether, behind closed doors, they are doing exactly what they are suing Midjourney for doing.' The startup argues that if the studios are developing internal AI tools for storyboarding or ideation using unlicensed copyrighted material, that would demonstrate an industry-wide practice. It is also demanding full disclosure of all prompts used in Midjourney and the resulting outputs, not just those flagged as infringing.
The studios' lead attorney, David Singer, has described the request as a 'fishing expedition,' insisting the studios only want to stop Midjourney from copying and distributing their protected works without permission. The case is being watched closely in the UK, where the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) is developing guidance on AI and copyright, and where the EU AI Act is beginning to influence regulatory thinking. For UK businesses, the outcome could clarify whether training AI on copyrighted data constitutes fair use — a question that remains legally uncertain under British law.
Dr Eleanor Marsh, a technology law expert at the University of Cambridge, said: 'This case is pivotal. If the court forces studios to reveal their own AI practices, it could expose a double standard and reshape how the creative industries approach licensing. For UK firms, it underscores the need to audit their training data now, before regulators tighten the rules.'