Skip to content
Chimera readability score 71 out of 100, Expert reading level.

The image generator argued that the companies are also training their AI on copyrighted data.
Midjourney wants to see how Warner Bros. Discovery, Disney and Universal Studios use artificial intelligence technologies in their shows and movies, and according to Variety it wants the companies to submit that information to court. Last year, the studios filed a lawsuit against the AI image generator, accusing it of copyright infringement for being able to generate images of Superman, Batman and other copyrighted characters. Midjourney argued that training AI with publicly available images is fair use and that the studios themselves use the same training practices for their own AI models.
Specifically, Midjourney is asking for the studios' AI business plans, research reports, training datasets, model weights and even the presentations about AI the companies used for their board meetings. However, in mid-June, a magistrate judge allowed the studios to withhold most information involving their AI use and to hand over only information related to "consumer-facing" AI applications. Now, Midjourney is asking the federal court to overturn that judge's order.
According to litigation publication Mealey's, Midjourney's reasoning is that the evidence it's asking for is related to its fair use defense. If the image generator can show that the studios themselves are training their own models on copyrighted works, then it could weaken their lawsuit. "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," wrote Midjourney attorney Bobby Ghajar. The federal judge's decision for this case could have an effect on future lawsuits, as it could set a precedent on what kind of information should and can be admitted in court.

Sentinel — Human

Confidence

This text functions as a clear, fact-based summary of a complex legal dispute, exhibiting the structure and specificity of human journalistic reporting rather than generalized synthetic content.

Signals Detected
low severity: Moderate sentence length variance; uses formal legal phrasing but flows naturally.
low severity: Fluent and logically structured argument typical of reporting on a specific court case. No excessive hedging or vacuous balance.
low severity: Clear attribution (Variety, Mealey's) and logical flow linking the lawsuit, the request for data, and the legal reasoning.
low severity: Claims are specific to legal proceedings and named entities; no obvious LLM confabulation detected.
Human Indicators
Specific references to litigation publications (Mealey's) and named legal figures/attorneys suggest reliance on verifiable legal reporting.
The complex interplay between specific court orders, fair use defenses, and evidence disclosure demonstrates domain-specific knowledge typical of journalistic investigation.