# Hollywood Sues the Image Machine: Disney and Universal v. Midjourney > Disney and Universal accuse Midjourney of training on and generating their iconic characters. The pending C.D. Cal. case tests whether AI image output infringes famous copyrighted figures. Topic: Copyright | Author: Lidiia Levitska | Source: Intellectual Property Law (outsideipcounsel.com) Canonical: https://outsideipcounsel.com/blog/disney-v-midjourney-ai-image-generator/ In June 2025, the two studios that arguably define American popular imagery walked into a Los Angeles federal court and accused an artificial-intelligence company of industrializing the theft of their characters. In *Disney Enterprises, Inc., et al. v. Midjourney, Inc.*, No. 2:25-cv-05275-JAK-AJR (C.D. Cal., filed June 11, 2025), Disney and Universal allege that the popular image generator Midjourney was trained on, and now produces on demand, unauthorized depictions of Darth Vader, Yoda, Iron Man, Spider-Man, Shrek, the Minions, and a roster of other instantly recognizable figures. For the Los Angeles entertainment industry, it is the most consequential test yet of whether generative image tools can be held to account for what they make, not merely what they ingest. This matter remains unsettled as of June 29, 2026, and nothing here should be read as a final ruling. ## At a glance - **Case:** *Disney Enterprises, Inc., DreamWorks Animation L.L.C., Lucasfilm Ltd. LLC, MVL Film Finance LLC, Marvel Characters, Inc., Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, and Universal City Studios Productions LLLP v. Midjourney, Inc.*, No. 2:25-cv-05275-JAK-AJR (C.D. Cal.). - **Court:** U.S. District Court for the Central District of California; Judge John A. Kronstadt presiding, Magistrate Judge A. Joel Richlin on discovery. - **Posture:** Pleadings and discovery; consolidated in November 2025 with a later-filed suit, *Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. v. Midjourney, Inc.*, No. 2:25-cv-08376, with the Disney action as the lead case. - **Status:** Pending — the case is in discovery; no merits ruling and no fair-use decision have issued — unsettled as of June 29, 2026. - **Significance:** The first major Hollywood-studio copyright suit against a generative image platform, framed around infringing outputs of iconic characters rather than training alone. ## The studios' theory: a "bottomless pit of plagiarism" The complaint's rhetorical centerpiece is the charge that Midjourney operates as, in the studios' words, a "bottomless pit of plagiarism." The plaintiffs allege both direct and secondary copyright infringement. On the direct side, they contend that building the model required copying their works wholesale and that the service then reproduces and distributes infringing derivative images of their characters. On the secondary side, they allege Midjourney induces and profits from users' infringement by designing a tool that predictably generates protected characters in response to simple text prompts. Critically, the studios anchor much of their case in outputs. The complaint reproduces grids of Midjourney-generated images that, the plaintiffs say, are all but indistinguishable from licensed depictions of their characters. That emphasis is strategic: by focusing on what the service produces, the studios aim to avoid the thornier, fact-intensive debate over precisely what a trained model "contains," a question that has bogged down parallel cases against other image generators. ## Why characters, not just frames Disney and Universal do not merely claim that individual film frames were copied. Their stronger claim rests on the copyright in the characters themselves — Iron Man, the Minions, Yoda — which courts have long recognized as protectable when sufficiently delineated. A character like Darth Vader is protected across films, merchandise, and media, so an image generator that conjures a convincing Darth Vader implicates that character copyright regardless of which specific frame it resembles. That framing lets the studios point to outputs that are not copies of any one image but are unmistakably the protected character. It also raises the stakes of the requested relief: the plaintiffs seek not only damages but an injunction that could force Midjourney to implement technical measures preventing the generation of their characters — or, failing that, curtail the service. The litigation thus tests whether character copyright can function as a guardrail on what generative tools are permitted to depict. ## Midjourney's expected defenses Midjourney has contested the claims and is expected to lean on fair use, arguing that training on publicly available images is transformative and that responsibility for any infringing output lies with the user who prompts it. It may also dispute the studios' output examples as cherry-picked and argue that its terms of service prohibit infringing uses. Each of these defenses echoes arguments raised across the broader wave of AI copyright litigation, but none has yet been tested on these facts. The procedural backdrop matters. With the Warner Bros. suit consolidated into the Disney action in November 2025, the combined case now spans an extraordinary breadth of famous characters and studios, magnifying both the discovery burden and the potential precedential weight. How the court treats the output-centered theory — and whether it permits the studios to reach Midjourney's training data and filtering choices in discovery — will shape the contours of the merits fight to come. ## Open questions - **Does generating a recognizable character infringe the character copyright** even when the output copies no single source image? The case squarely presents that question for generative tools. - **Where does liability sit** — with the platform that built and markets the model, or with the user who types the prompt? The direct-versus-secondary framing will be contested throughout. - **Will fair use shield training, output, or neither?** No fair-use ruling has issued, and the answer may differ for ingestion versus on-demand generation. ## Implications - **For studios and rights holders:** Character copyright, not just frame-by-frame copying, is emerging as the sharpest tool against generative image tools — but it must still be proven case by case. - **For AI developers:** Output filtering and the marketing of a tool's capabilities are now litigable. How a service is designed to respond to prompts for famous characters may matter as much as how it was trained. - **For litigators:** Anchoring claims in outputs can sidestep contested questions about a model's internal contents, but it invites disputes over how representative the cited examples are. - **For the broader docket:** Because the case is consolidated and in discovery, much will turn on what training and filtering evidence the studios can compel — a posture that magnifies the stakes of expert testimony and document production. - **For everyone watching:** This is an active dispute. Treat the studios' allegations as allegations until a court rules. ## Frequently asked questions **Has any court ruled that Midjourney infringed Disney's copyrights?** No. The case was filed in June 2025 and is in discovery. The studios' complaint sets out allegations of direct and secondary infringement, but no court has decided the merits or ruled on a fair-use defense. This matter remains unsettled. **Why does this case focus on outputs rather than just training?** Unlike many earlier AI suits centered on what happened during training, the studios emphasize that Midjourney's service generates images that closely depict their copyrighted characters on demand. That output-side theory aims to sidestep disputes about what a model internally contains. **What does it mean that the Disney and Warner Bros. cases were consolidated?** In November 2025 the court combined the Disney and a later Warner Bros. suit against Midjourney into a single proceeding, with the Disney case as the lead. Consolidation streamlines discovery and pretrial rulings, but each studio's claims remain to be proven. ## Authorities and sources - *Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Midjourney, Inc.*, No. 2:25-cv-05275 (C.D. Cal.): [docket (CourtListener)](https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70513159/disney-enterprises-inc-v-midjourney-inc/). - Complaint (filed June 11, 2025): [PDF (Variety)](https://variety.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Disney-NBCU-v-Midjourney.pdf). - *Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. v. Midjourney, Inc.*, No. 2:25-cv-08376 (C.D. Cal.): [docket (CourtListener)](https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71271014/warner-bros-entertainment-inc-v-midjourney-inc/). - Background and analysis: [Georgetown Law, "Disney, NBC Universal, and DreamWorks File Major IP Lawsuit Against AI Image Generator Midjourney"](https://www.law.georgetown.edu/tech-institute/research-insights/insights/disney-nbc-universal-and-dreamworks-file-major-ip-lawsuit-against-ai-image-generator-midjourney/); [Center for Art Law](https://itsartlaw.org/art-law/framing-the-future-disney-and-universal-challenge-midjourney-over-ai-generated-imagery/).