Midjourney issued its first response to a lawsuit brought by Disney and Universal, arguing that the studios have no power to prevent AI training on its works.
The studios accused Midjourney — a startup AI image platform — of “vast, intentional, and unrelenting copyright infringement” in a suit filed in June, claiming that users on the platform were able to produce nearly identical copies of the studios’ copyrighted characters.
In a response filed Wednesday evening, Midjourney argued that AI training is protected “fair use.”
“Copyright law does not confer absolute control over the use of copyrighted works,” Midjourney’s lawyers argued. “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.”
Midjourney also argued that the studios are trying to “have it both ways,” using AI tools themselves while seeking to punish a popular AI service. According to the filing, Midjourney is a popular tool among visual effects companies and other vendors that work with Disney and Universal.
The response also states that “many dozens” of Midjourney’s subscribers have email addresses linked to Disney and Universal — suggesting the studios’ own employees are also using the service. Midjourney’s lawyers also note that Disney CEO Bob Iger spoke approvingly of AI during an annual meeting in March, saying that “technology is an invaluable tool for artists.”
“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.
The Disney-Universal lawsuit largely focuses on AI outputs, arguing that Midjourney users are creating images that are substantially similar to the studios’ copyrighted works. In that sense, the suit is different from other lawsuits that have argued that AI training alone constitutes infringement.
In response, Midjourney states that its users are required to adhere to the terms of service, which forbid infringing on intellectual property rights. But merely creating images similar to copyrighted works is not enough to show infringement, the company’s lawyers argue.
“Indeed, there are any number of legitimate, noninfringing grounds to create images incorporating characters from popular culture like those claimed by Plaintiffs, including non-commercial fan art, experimentation and ideation, and social commentary and criticism,” Midjourney’s lawyers wrote. “Plaintiffs seek to stifle them all.”
Midjourney is represented by Bobby Ghajar, John Paul Oleksiuk, Judd Lauter and Ellie Dupler of Cooley LLP. Ghajar also represents Meta in a case in which authors have accused the company of illicitly training its AI language model on their books.
