Midjourney Seeks Expanded Discovery of Hollywood Studios' Internal AI Practices

Midjourney filed a motion in federal court asking Judge John Kronstadt to overturn a June 15, 2026 magistrate order limiting discovery to consumer-facing AI tools. It seeks AI business plans, training data, model weights and board presentations from Disney, Universal and Warner Bros.

Midjourney Appeals Order Limiting AI Use Disclosure

Last year Disney, Universal and Warner Bros. sued Midjourney, alleging its tool enables infringing images of characters like Batman and Superman. Midjourney says its system is fair-use protected and that the studios use AI.

Midjourney Forces Disney, Universal and Warner Bros. to Reveal How They Use AI in Copyright Battle

Midjourney is represented by Bobby Ghajar; the studios by David Singer. Magistrate Judge Joel Richlin issued the discovery order, and Judge John Kronstadt will decide the motion.

Variety Magazine

2025: Studios sue. June 15 2026: Magistrate limits discovery to consumer-facing AI. June 16 2026: Midjourney seeks broader discovery. July 2026: Motion pending before Kronstadt.

Midjourney Appeals Order Limiting AI Use Disclosure

If discovery is allowed, it may recognize an “industry custom” of training AI on copyrighted works, affecting fair-use analysis for AI. A denial would keep limits on probing and protect trade-secrets.

Midjourney Appeals Order Limiting AI Use Disclosure

Midjourney says the studios’ internal AI use is key to its fair-use and unclean-hands defenses. The studios call request a fishing expedition and say they want Midjourney to stop copying their characters. Magistrate Richlin stressed relevance to infringement claim.

Variety Magazine

David Singer called Midjourney’s discovery push a distraction from infringement case, labeling it a “fishing expedition” that shifts focus onto internal AI use rather than addressing unauthorized reproductions.

Variety Magazine

Sources confirm the limited-discovery order but do not define required consumer-facing AI tools, leaving scope ambiguous.

Midjourney Appeals Order Limiting AI Use Disclosure

• “If Plaintiffs are doing the very thing they seek to punish, that evidence goes to the heart of Midjourney’s fair use and unclean hands defenses.” — Bobby Ghajar, attorney for Midjourney

Midjourney Forces Disney, Universal and Warner Bros. to Reveal How They Use AI in Copyright Battle

• “If Plaintiffs are developing image-generating AI models — trained on unlicensed, third-party copyrighted data — for internal use in storyboarding or ideating content for film or TV, that evidence would equally demonstrate that it is an industry custom, even among the studios themselves, to download and train AI on unlicensed copyrighted content,” — Bobby Ghajar

Variety Magazine

• “Singer wrote, “Plaintiffs do not seek to stop AI technology or even shut down Midjourney’s business.” — David Singer, lead attorney for the studios

Midjourney Forces Disney, Universal and Warner Bros. to Reveal How They Use AI in Copyright Battle

• “Plaintiffs simply want Midjourney to stop copying their movies and TV shows and to stop distributing, publicly displaying, publicly performing, and creating derivative works that include copies of Plaintiffs’ famous characters without authorization—the same rights any copyright holder would assert against any infringer, AI-powered or otherwise.” — David Singer

Variety Magazine

Judge Kronstadt will rule soon. A decision for broader discovery could force the studios to reveal AI workflows; a denial would keep focus on alleged infringing outputs and limit AI transparency.

Midjourney Appeals Order Limiting AI Use Disclosure