Disney and NBCUniversal Sue Midjourney in Landmark AI Copyright Case
3 mins reading time
In a groundbreaking legal move that could reshape the future of artificial intelligence and copyright law, entertainment powerhouses Disney and NBCUniversal have filed a joint federal lawsuit against AI image generator Midjourney. The case, lodged in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, marks the first major legal action by Hollywood studios against a generative AI company.
It follows Getty Images (US) Inc and others v Stability AI Ltd in the UK, and Bartz v Anthropic in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
In the former case Getty and a class of copyright owners brought action against generative AI company Stability AI Ltd. Getty’s copyright claims were recently dropped after
(i) It was unable to demonstrate that the development and training process from start to finish occurred in the relevant jurisdiction, being the UK; and;
(ii) Stability AI voluntarily put measures in place so that the prompts complained of could no longer be used to generate synthetic outputs (which substantially aligned with the injunctive relief Getty was seeking).
The Core Allegations: A “Bottomless Pit of Plagiarism”
The 143-page complaint accuses Midjourney of systematically using characters and creative works in which copyright subsists, owned by Disney and NBCUniversal, to train its AI models without permission. The studios further allege that Midjourney enables users to generate unauthorized images of iconic characters such as Darth Vader, Elsa, Shrek, and the Minions – amounting to both direct and secondary copyright infringement. This allegation is broken down into four parts:
- Midjourney AI was trained using Disney’s and Universal’s content and Midjourney did so knowing the AI would make copies and derivatives of this content as a result of the training.
- Midjourney publicly displays and distributes unauthorised copies and derivative works of Disney’s and Universal’s characters.
- Midjourney makes available its database of previously generated copies and derivative works of Disney’s and Universal’s characters to advertise Midjourney’s ability.
- Midjourney has the ability to, but chooses not to, take any reasonable measures to prevent copyright infringement.
Side-by-side comparison in the complaint showing the Aladdin and Jasmine characters in which copyright subsists and Midjourney’s output. Photo: Disney and NBCUniversal v. Midjourney complaint.
Side-by-side comparison in the complaint showing the Shrek character in which copyright subsists and Midjourney’s output. Photo: Disney and NBCUniversal v. Midjourney complaint.
The lawsuit describes Midjourney as a “quintessential copyright free-rider” and a “bottomless pit of plagiarism,” asserting that the company has built its business model on the unauthorized use of protected intellectual property. According to the complaint, Midjourney generated over $300 million USD in revenue last year through paid subscriptions, despite having only 11 full-time employees. The studios argue that this revenue was made possible by exploiting content in which copyright subsists, without investing in its creation.
The plaintiffs also claim that Midjourney ignored multiple cease-and-desist letters and continued to release updated versions of its platform that further enabled infringement. The lawsuit includes over 30 side-by-side comparisons of AI-generated images and original characters in which copyright subsists to demonstrate the alleged violations.
A Turning Point in AI Copyright Law
The recent lawsuit filed by Disney and NBCUniversal against AI platform Midjourney marks more than a headline-grabbing clash—it reflects a broader surge of intellectual property litigation now facing AI companies across sectors. From news outlets and publishing houses to music labels and visual artists, rights holders are increasingly challenging the unauthorized use of their work in AI training and outputs.
The involvement of two media giants in this case is especially significant. Unlike individual creators or small publishers, Disney and NBCUniversal possess the resources and legal firepower to pursue a complex case through discovery, trial, and appeals—signalling a new phase in the legal fight over how AI systems use and replicate content in which copyright subsists.
Although, Australian courts would not be bound to any decision made in this lawsuit, it could provide persuasive authority. Australia does not currently have extensive case law in relation to AI. As such, the result of this matter may help shape future AI related law in Australia.
At the legislative level, disputes over AI teaching, or outputs bearing a striking similarity to materials/images in which copyright subsists, would need to be brought under the Copyright Act, as Australia is deficient of any AI specific legislation, within or outside of the Copyright Act. However, the Australian Government is currently taking steps to introduce legislation relating to AI in the future.
Implications for Businesses Using AI
This case isn’t just about how AI learns; it’s about how AI-generated content is used, commercialised, and ultimately held accountable under the law. As generative AI becomes a staple in operational and creative workflows, businesses must understand that copyright protections are likely to still apply—and that courts are beginning to define the rules of acceptable AI use of copyright materials.
Organisations can not assume that AI-generated content is legally insulated from infringement claims. Depending on the court’s ruling, this case could result in industry-wide mandates such as licensing obligations, stronger content filters, or more conservative use policies to prevent copyright violations by design.
In fact, Europe has already passed legislation regulating AI and requiring businesses that interact with European companies to have an AI policy compliant with the European AI Regulations.
Our Perspective
At Macpherson Kelley, we believe this lawsuit signals a turning point in the intersection of AI and intellectual property. As courts begin to grapple with these novel issues, businesses must proactively assess their legal exposure. Even if Australia does not yet have any AI-specific legislative controls, it’s important that your business is protected for security, customer peace of mind and international trade. If your organisation is developing or using AI technologies and you want to review your practices and policies to ensure you are properly protected, please contact our Intellectual Property team.
The information contained in this article is general in nature and cannot be relied on as legal advice nor does it create an engagement. Please contact one of our lawyers listed above for advice about your specific situation.
more
insights
stay up to date with our news & insights
Disney and NBCUniversal Sue Midjourney in Landmark AI Copyright Case
In a groundbreaking legal move that could reshape the future of artificial intelligence and copyright law, entertainment powerhouses Disney and NBCUniversal have filed a joint federal lawsuit against AI image generator Midjourney. The case, lodged in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, marks the first major legal action by Hollywood studios against a generative AI company.
It follows Getty Images (US) Inc and others v Stability AI Ltd in the UK, and Bartz v Anthropic in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
In the former case Getty and a class of copyright owners brought action against generative AI company Stability AI Ltd. Getty’s copyright claims were recently dropped after
(i) It was unable to demonstrate that the development and training process from start to finish occurred in the relevant jurisdiction, being the UK; and;
(ii) Stability AI voluntarily put measures in place so that the prompts complained of could no longer be used to generate synthetic outputs (which substantially aligned with the injunctive relief Getty was seeking).
The Core Allegations: A “Bottomless Pit of Plagiarism”
The 143-page complaint accuses Midjourney of systematically using characters and creative works in which copyright subsists, owned by Disney and NBCUniversal, to train its AI models without permission. The studios further allege that Midjourney enables users to generate unauthorized images of iconic characters such as Darth Vader, Elsa, Shrek, and the Minions – amounting to both direct and secondary copyright infringement. This allegation is broken down into four parts:
- Midjourney AI was trained using Disney’s and Universal’s content and Midjourney did so knowing the AI would make copies and derivatives of this content as a result of the training.
- Midjourney publicly displays and distributes unauthorised copies and derivative works of Disney’s and Universal’s characters.
- Midjourney makes available its database of previously generated copies and derivative works of Disney’s and Universal’s characters to advertise Midjourney’s ability.
- Midjourney has the ability to, but chooses not to, take any reasonable measures to prevent copyright infringement.
Side-by-side comparison in the complaint showing the Aladdin and Jasmine characters in which copyright subsists and Midjourney’s output. Photo: Disney and NBCUniversal v. Midjourney complaint.
Side-by-side comparison in the complaint showing the Shrek character in which copyright subsists and Midjourney’s output. Photo: Disney and NBCUniversal v. Midjourney complaint.
The lawsuit describes Midjourney as a “quintessential copyright free-rider” and a “bottomless pit of plagiarism,” asserting that the company has built its business model on the unauthorized use of protected intellectual property. According to the complaint, Midjourney generated over $300 million USD in revenue last year through paid subscriptions, despite having only 11 full-time employees. The studios argue that this revenue was made possible by exploiting content in which copyright subsists, without investing in its creation.
The plaintiffs also claim that Midjourney ignored multiple cease-and-desist letters and continued to release updated versions of its platform that further enabled infringement. The lawsuit includes over 30 side-by-side comparisons of AI-generated images and original characters in which copyright subsists to demonstrate the alleged violations.
A Turning Point in AI Copyright Law
The recent lawsuit filed by Disney and NBCUniversal against AI platform Midjourney marks more than a headline-grabbing clash—it reflects a broader surge of intellectual property litigation now facing AI companies across sectors. From news outlets and publishing houses to music labels and visual artists, rights holders are increasingly challenging the unauthorized use of their work in AI training and outputs.
The involvement of two media giants in this case is especially significant. Unlike individual creators or small publishers, Disney and NBCUniversal possess the resources and legal firepower to pursue a complex case through discovery, trial, and appeals—signalling a new phase in the legal fight over how AI systems use and replicate content in which copyright subsists.
Although, Australian courts would not be bound to any decision made in this lawsuit, it could provide persuasive authority. Australia does not currently have extensive case law in relation to AI. As such, the result of this matter may help shape future AI related law in Australia.
At the legislative level, disputes over AI teaching, or outputs bearing a striking similarity to materials/images in which copyright subsists, would need to be brought under the Copyright Act, as Australia is deficient of any AI specific legislation, within or outside of the Copyright Act. However, the Australian Government is currently taking steps to introduce legislation relating to AI in the future.
Implications for Businesses Using AI
This case isn’t just about how AI learns; it’s about how AI-generated content is used, commercialised, and ultimately held accountable under the law. As generative AI becomes a staple in operational and creative workflows, businesses must understand that copyright protections are likely to still apply—and that courts are beginning to define the rules of acceptable AI use of copyright materials.
Organisations can not assume that AI-generated content is legally insulated from infringement claims. Depending on the court’s ruling, this case could result in industry-wide mandates such as licensing obligations, stronger content filters, or more conservative use policies to prevent copyright violations by design.
In fact, Europe has already passed legislation regulating AI and requiring businesses that interact with European companies to have an AI policy compliant with the European AI Regulations.
Our Perspective
At Macpherson Kelley, we believe this lawsuit signals a turning point in the intersection of AI and intellectual property. As courts begin to grapple with these novel issues, businesses must proactively assess their legal exposure. Even if Australia does not yet have any AI-specific legislative controls, it’s important that your business is protected for security, customer peace of mind and international trade. If your organisation is developing or using AI technologies and you want to review your practices and policies to ensure you are properly protected, please contact our Intellectual Property team.