Midjourney seeks studios' internal AI prompts and outputs

Midjourney is asking a court to force Disney, Universal and Warner Bros to reveal how those studios use generative AI, including all prompts used in Midjourney and the resulting outputs. The request comes amid ongoing copyright suits that began when Disney and Universal sued Midjourney last year and was followed a few months later by a suit from Warner Bros.

What exactly is Midjourney asking the courts to produce?

Midjourney wants broad discovery of the studios' generative-AI documentation, not just material tied to "consumer-facing" images and videos. Specifically, the startup asks judges to require studios to produce all prompts they used in Midjourney and the resulting outputs, rather than only the prompts that produced the allegedly infringing images. Midjourney argues the current limitation lets studios "cherry-pick" documents that support their market-harm claims while withholding materials that could back Midjourney's defenses.

How did this dispute start and what has happened so far?

Disney and Universal sued Midjourney last year, alleging the startup's image-generation models could create images of studio-owned characters such as Bart Simpson and Darth Vader, and Warner Bros filed suit a few months later. Midjourney has defended its training of models on images of copyrighted characters as permitted under fair use. A judge previously ruled the studios must provide information about their generative-AI usage, but limited that requirement to situations where the AI work led to "consumer-facing" videos and images. In its latest filing, Midjourney seeks to overturn that limitation.

What arguments are the studios and their lawyer making?

The studios' lead attorney David Singer has characterized Midjourney's demand for the documents as a "fishing expedition." Singer also stated the studios "do not seek to stop AI technology or even shut down Midjourney’s business," and framed their position as wanting 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 their famous characters without authorization.

Why it matters

The scope of discovery will shape both parties' ability to make their cases. If the courts force studios to produce internal AI-use records beyond consumer-facing outputs, Midjourney could seek evidence that studios themselves use unlicensed copyrighted material to train or test internal image-generating systems for tasks such as storyboarding or ideation. Midjourney says such evidence would show an industry custom of downloading and training on unlicensed content. Conversely, limiting discovery to consumer-facing material lets studios keep internal practices private while pursuing claims over public distributions. That division affects not only Midjourney's defense but the broader question of what constitutes permissible training data across the industry.

What to watch

Watch for the court's response to Midjourney's latest filing seeking to overturn the consumer-facing limitation and to compel production of all prompts and outputs. The ruling will determine whether discovery will include internal studio uses of generative AI beyond public-facing content.