Pot calling kettle AI-generated: Midjourney claims studios use AI while suing for copyright

Midjourney has filed its first legal response to a copyright infringement lawsuit brought by Disney and Universal Studios, arguing that AI training on copyrighted works constitutes protected “fair use” under copyright law. The AI image generation startup is pushing back against claims of “vast, intentional, and unrelenting copyright infringement,” while accusing the entertainment giants of hypocrisy for using AI tools themselves while simultaneously seeking to restrict AI training practices.

The big picture: This case represents a pivotal moment in the ongoing legal battle over AI training rights, with Midjourney challenging the studios’ ability to control how their copyrighted content is used for machine learning purposes.

What they’re saying: Midjourney’s lawyers argue that Disney and Universal are attempting to have contradictory positions on AI usage.

• “Plaintiffs cannot have it both ways, seeking to profit — through their use of Midjourney and other generative AI tools — from industry-standard AI training practices on the one hand, while on the other hand accusing Midjourney of wrongdoing for the same,” the filing states.
• “Copyright law does not confer absolute control over the use of copyrighted works,” Midjourney’s lawyers argued, adding that “The limited monopoly granted by copyright must give way to fair use, which safeguards countervailing public interests in the free flow of ideas and information.”

Key evidence of studio hypocrisy: Midjourney’s response reveals extensive use of the platform within the entertainment industry itself.

• “Many dozens” of Midjourney subscribers have email addresses linked to Disney and Universal, suggesting the studios’ own employees are using the service.
• The platform is popular among visual effects companies and other vendors that work with Disney and Universal.
• Disney CEO Bob Iger spoke approvingly of AI during an annual meeting in March, calling technology “an invaluable tool for artists.”

The legal distinction: This lawsuit differs from other AI copyright cases by focusing primarily on AI outputs rather than the training process itself.

• Disney and Universal argue that Midjourney users can create images “substantially similar” to their copyrighted characters.
• Midjourney counters that users must adhere to terms of service forbidding intellectual property infringement.
• The company argues that creating similar images isn’t automatically infringement, citing legitimate uses including “non-commercial fan art, experimentation and ideation, and social commentary and criticism.”

Who’s involved: Midjourney is represented by Cooley LLP lawyers Bobby Ghajar, John Paul Oleksiuk, Judd Lauter, and Ellie Dupler, with Ghajar also representing Meta in a similar case involving authors’ claims about AI language model training.