{"id":8839,"date":"2025-11-11T19:10:51","date_gmt":"2025-11-11T19:10:25","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/tech-institute\/?page_id=8839"},"modified":"2025-11-13T15:39:50","modified_gmt":"2025-11-13T15:39:50","slug":"disney-nbc-universal-and-dreamworks-file-major-ip-lawsuit-against-ai-image-generator-midjourney","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/tech-institute\/research-insights\/insights\/disney-nbc-universal-and-dreamworks-file-major-ip-lawsuit-against-ai-image-generator-midjourney\/","title":{"rendered":"Disney, NBC Universal, and DreamWorks File Major IP Lawsuit Against AI Image Generator Midjourney"},"content":{"rendered":"

The intellectual property world\u2019s most notorious litigator has joined forces with two of its arch-rivals to bring another legal challenge to generative AI\u2019s use of copyrighted material, alleging that a major AI image generator has engaged in mass copyright infringement.<\/span><\/p>\n

Bottom Line:\u00a0<\/i><\/b>With the filing of this lawsuit, Disney and Universal have opened up another front in major IP holders\u2019 war to rein in generative AI\u2019s use of their property as training data. Additionally, this lawsuit marks the first time that major Hollywood studios have sued AI companies.<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

Analysis<\/h2>\n

On June 11, Disney, NBC Universal, and DreamWorks filed a <\/b>ma<\/b>j<\/b>or cop<\/b>y<\/b>ri<\/b>g<\/b>ht infrin<\/b>g<\/b>ement lawsuit <\/b><\/a>against AI image-generation company Midjourney, alleging mass infringement of the companies\u2019 intellectual properties. <\/b>The companies seek injunctive relief barring Midjourney from offering its imagegeneration services without the implementation of copyright protections preventing the reproduction of the plaintiffs\u2019 IP. If granted by the court, this would effectively force at least a temporary shutdown of the entire Midjourney service. Midjourney, however, is likely to fight these claims in court.<\/p>\n

In a 110-page complaint (link to PDF) <\/a>filed in federal court in the Central District of California, the plaintiffs make the case that Midjourney, whose site allows users to create AI-generated images based on written prompts, has effectively engaged in mass piracy of Disney, Universal, and DreamWorks\u2019 IP, and used said IP as training data. The complaint does not mince words:<\/p>\n

\u201c…Midjourney is the quintessential copyright free-rider and a bottomless pit of plagiarism. Piracy is piracy, and whether an infringing image or video is made with AI or another technology does not make it any less infringing.\u201d<\/i><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The plaintiffs further allege, with numerous examples, that Midjourney has done this to such an extent that the image generator can reliably generate downloadable, high-quality images of copyrighted characters that are nearly indistinguishable from official artwork.<\/p>\n

\"Midjourney<\/p>\n

\"Midjourney<\/p>\n

The plaintiffs underscore the fact that Midjourney is consistently capable of generating images of specifically named characters<\/i>.<\/i> That is to say, as shown in the example above, the AI is willing to produce fairly realistic depictions of Star Wars <\/i>character Yoda in response to the prompt \u201cYoda with lightsaber, IMAX<\/i>,\u201d (a prompt which contains no fewer than three<\/i> copyrighted or trademarked phrases). The user need not engage in any circumlocution or prompt engineering.<\/p>\n

\"Midjourney<\/p>\n

The plaintiffs additionally show the AI\u2019s ability to replicate specific scenes and frames from particular movies<\/i> with remarkable accuracy. To be fair, it is possible that at least some of Midjourney\u2019s output is attributable to the thousands of media articles covering Avengers: Infinity War<\/i>, many of which likely used the same (or similar) promotional stills from the movie. Yet, this would probably still constitute a misuse of Marvel\u2019s IP.<\/p>\n

\"Midjourney<\/p>\n

\"Midjourney<\/p>\n

Perhaps the most damning part of the plaintiffs\u2019 accusations, however, is that Midjourney is capable of generating highly realistic depictions of copyrighted characters without being instructed to do so. While some of the prompts shown in the complaint are fairly specific – for instance, \u201cblack armor with light sword\u201d or \u201cman in robes with light sword,\u201d others are exceptionally generic \u201canimated toys\u201d or \u201cpopular movie screencap,\u201d and yet result in exceptionally specific depictions of copyrighted characters.<\/p>\n

GenAI vs. IP Law: The State of Play<\/strong><\/h2>\n

The generative AI field is already fighting multiple major IP lawsuits. Two of these are especially noteworthy:<\/span><\/p>\n

New York Times v. Microsoft<\/i><\/strong><\/h3>\n

Of these, the most reported-on is undoubtedly New York Times v. Microsoft<\/i> in the federal Southern District of New York<\/a>, in which a coalition of newspapers and publishing companies are suing Microsoft and OpenAI for alleged mass infringement of their written material. The defendants, for their part, argue that training data falls under the category of \u201cfair use\u201d under U.S. copyright law. Though filed in 2023, the case still has yet to go to trial, as the litigants have been mired in pre-trial procedural issues and discovery requests.<\/a> This case poses a very real risk to the OpenAI and Microsoft\u2019s businesses, as the remedy requested by the plaintiffs includes (potentially) a court-ordered shutdown of GPT-4, as well as all other OpenAI and Microsoft LLMs which have used the plaintiffs\u2019 works as training data.<\/p>\n

Getty Images v. Stability AI<\/i><\/strong><\/h3>\n

The other major case pitting generative AI against intellectual property rights is Gett<\/i>y<\/i> Ima<\/i>g<\/i>es v. Stabilit<\/i>y<\/i> AI<\/i>, <\/a>filed in the federal District of Delaware. In this case, stock photo owner Getty Images has sued AI image generator StableDiffusion for allegedly using Getty\u2019s proprietary stock photos as training data. In legal terms, this case is largely similar to New York Times<\/i>, except it applies the same reasoning (training data as not constituting \u201cfair use\u201d) to images<\/i> (along with image metadata and captions), as opposed to text. The other main difference between Getty Images<\/i> and New York Times<\/i> is that Getty is additionally pursuing a trademark<\/i> infringement claim, owing to the fact that the StableDiffusion AI has, on occasion, reproduced the Getty Images watermark. (This is significant because trademark infringement, in which one company passes off its products as those of another company, is a significantly more serious intellectual property violation than copyright infringement, and allows the plaintiff to seek triple damages.) Getty\u2019s requested damages, amounting to over $1 billion, would likely bankrupt Stability AI.<\/p>\n

Where does the Disney lawsuit fit in?<\/strong><\/h3>\n

In terms of the law itself, Disney\u2019s lawsuit has far more in common with Getty Images<\/i> – both suits deal with visual media as opposed to the written word, and, as such, hinge on the same legal issues.<\/p>\n

However, in some ways, the Disney lawsuit is potentially much more compelling (and, arguably, dangerous for the AI industry) than either New York Times<\/i> or Getty<\/i>. In the NYT<\/i> case, while the full, unaltered text of copyrighted written works can be regurgitated by GPT-4, doing so requires a bit of prompt engineering (specifically, pasting parts of the text of a given written work into ChatGPT, causing ChatGPT to supply the remainder of the text.) Midjourney, by contrast, will readily generate images of copyrighted characters by name. That is, a user need only prompt the AI with \u201cYoda,\u201d and not, say, \u201ca short, elderly, green, humanoid alien with pointed ears dressed in a brown robe and carrying a laser sword.\u201d It would, indeed, appear that Midjourney has no <\/i>internal protocols intended to prevent such use of the platform.<\/p>\n

Additionally, the Disney lawsuit has something else working in its favor: pictures. The saying \u201ca picture is worth a thousand words\u201d exists for a reason, as humans tend to find visual media inherently compelling. Disney and the other plaintiffs thus have a powerful weapon in their arsenal\u2014the ability to show a court (and a jury) images<\/i> of alleged infringement, rather than simply text excerpts.<\/p>\n

Compared to the Getty <\/i>lawsuit, Disney\u2019s case also has some critical advantages. The reason for this is the subject matter. Getty <\/i>deals with stock photos – images which are, by design, so generic as to be fundamentally unremarkable. The Disney case, by contrast, deals with highly recognizable popculture icons. This is beneficial, because it makes the subject matter much more recognizable, and also makes the degree of Midjourney\u2019s mimicry all the more evident.<\/p>\n

Should we have seen this coming?<\/strong><\/h3>\n

It was, frankly, almost inevitable that Disney would eventually step into the ring with a generative AI platform.<\/b> Disney has a well-earned reputation as one of the most dreaded and aggressive IP litigants in existence. This is for two reasons.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

First, Disney is, to put it bluntly, a cultural powerhouse, with a portfolio so broad as to border on monopolistic. Aside from its original IPs like Mickey Mouse, the company owns a vast array of other highvalue properties across various genres, including the Star Wars<\/i> franchise, the Marvel Cinematic Universe, Pixar Studios\u2019 films, Avatar<\/i>, Indiana Jones<\/i>, Pirates of the Caribbean<\/i>, and countless others. Along with this, Disney has acquired 20th Century Studios (formerly 20th Century Fox), including with its entire catalog of films and TV shows stretching back to the 1930s, as well as indie film distributor Searchlight Pictures. The company is also the owner of National Geographic<\/i> and its documentary programming, and is the majority stakeholder in sports broadcasting giant ESPN, which itself holds the broadcast rights for countless sporting events. Finally, the company has also become a major player in the streaming space, with the launch of its Disney Plus service. All in all, Disney has a staggering number of properties on which it can make IPrelated claims.<\/p>\n

The second reason Disney has this well-earned reputation is the way it protects these IPs\u2014extremely proactively. The company is known for not hesitating to send \u201ccease and desist\u201d notices or threaten litigation against threats to its IPs, real or perceived. This policy has traditionally been enforced in an extremely strict manner.<\/p>\n

Disney is, indeed, quite notorious for issuing legal threats over even relatively minor or small-scale uses of its IP. In 1989, the company threatened to sue three Florida day-care centers for painting likenesses of copyrighted Disney characters on their walls as decoration. <\/a>Disney arch-rival Universal, smelling a minor PR coup, swept in and offered the day-cares the rights to use Universal Studios characters instead. Ultimately, no legal action occurred, as the Disney characters were quickly replaced with Universal characters, rendering the matter moot.<\/p>\n

In 2020, the company attempted to charge an elementary school\u2019s parent-teacher association $250 for holding an unauthorized screening of The Lion Kin<\/i>g<\/i> as a fundraiser.<\/a> Uncharacteristically, the company ultimately reversed course, with CEO Bob Iget ultimately apologizing for the incident.<\/p>\n

By far, however, the most infamous case of Disney\u2019s aggressive protection of its IP came in 2019, when the company\u2019s legal representatives denied a grieving family in the UK permission to place an image of SpiderMan on their deceased 4-year-old\u2019s tombstone, citing a company rule apparently promulgated by Walt Disney himself.<\/a> The company ultimately ordered the family to remove an image of the character from their child\u2019s grave.<\/p>\n

Why Midjourney?<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Simply put, Midjourney <\/span>posed an almost-perfect tar<\/span>g<\/span>et<\/span><\/a> for Disney\u2019s lawsuit. To begin with, the two other giants of the AI image-generation world, Stability AI and OpenAI, are both already embroiled in IP litigation of their own. Since those suits are already much further along in the litigation process, this would leave Disney with the company\u2019s financial leftovers if it prevailed and received damages. Midjourney, however, has managed to avoid any major IP suits up to this point, while still bringing in enough revenue (around $200 million) to at least be able to pay the plaintiff\u2019s attorneys\u2019 fees if it loses. <\/span>Thus, the focus here is probably not so much Midjourney\u2019s specific<\/i> actions as it is the actions of AI as a whole. Indeed, Disney\u2019s General Counsel has suggested as much, stating that \u201c[t]his is our first case, but it likely won\u2019t be the last.\u201d<\/a><\/p>\n

The real motive for Disney here is not money – at least, not directly. Rather, it is the preservation of the legal principles upon which the company\u2019s business model depends. It is not without good reason that the company has joined forces with two of its most bitter arch-rivals to defend their collective intellectual properties. Generative AI, and especially generative video AI (a version of which was just launched by Midjourney, only days after the filing of the lawsuit)<\/a>, pose a massive, and potentially existential threat to Hollywood studios and creatives. <\/span>The objective here, like in the <\/b>New York Times<\/i><\/b> case, seems to be to set a precedent for the entire AI industry, and ensure that it is one which protects the rights of intellectual property holders.<\/b><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Matthew Sparks was a Justice Fellow at the Tech Institute 2023-2024.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The intellectual property world\u2019s most notorious litigator has joined forces with two of its arch-rivals to bring another legal challenge to generative AI\u2019s use of copyrighted material, alleging that a […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":19629,"featured_media":0,"parent":7881,"menu_order":12,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_price":"","_stock":"","_tribe_ticket_header":"","_tribe_default_ticket_provider":"","_tribe_ticket_capacity":"0","_ticket_start_date":"","_ticket_end_date":"","_tribe_ticket_show_description":"","_tribe_ticket_show_not_going":false,"_tribe_ticket_use_global_stock":"","_tribe_ticket_global_stock_level":"","_global_stock_mode":"","_global_stock_cap":"","_tribe_rsvp_for_event":"","_tribe_ticket_going_count":"","_tribe_ticket_not_going_count":"","_tribe_tickets_list":"[]","_tribe_ticket_has_attendee_info_fields":false,"footnotes":"","_tec_slr_enabled":"","_tec_slr_layout":""},"class_list":["post-8839","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"acf":[],"ticketed":false,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/tech-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/8839","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/tech-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/tech-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/tech-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/19629"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/tech-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=8839"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/tech-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/8839\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":8869,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/tech-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/8839\/revisions\/8869"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/tech-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/7881"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/tech-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8839"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}