Midjourney responded for the first time to the lawsuit filed by Disney and Universal Studios, believing that the studios have no right to prevent AI training on their works.
The studio accused Midjourney of launching the AI Image Platform, whose “huge, intentional and unpopular copyright infringement” claimed in a lawsuit filed in June that users on the platform were able to produce nearly identical copies of the studio’s copyrighted role.
In a response filed Wednesday night, Mijuni argued that AI training is protected by “fair use.”
“Copyright law does not have absolute control over works protected by copyright,” said Midjourney’s lawyer. “The limited monopoly of copyright grants must give way to fair use, which protects the public interest of free-flowing ideas and information flows.”
Midjourney also argued that the studio was trying to use the AI tool itself to “two-way” while trying to punish popular AI services. According to the filing, Midjourney is a popular tool among visual effects companies and other suppliers that work with Disney and Universal.
The response also pointed out that “dozens” of Midjourney’s subscribers have email addresses related to Disney and Universal Pictures, suggesting that the studio’s own employees are also using the service. Midjourney’s lawyer also noted that Disney CEO Bob Iger seriously expressed his recognition of AI at his annual meeting in March, saying “technology is a valuable tool for artists.”
“The plaintiffs cannot use Midjourney and other generated AI tools to seek profits from industry-standard AI training practices, and on the one hand, accusing Midjourney of committing the same wrongdoing,” the document noted.
Disney – The widespread lawsuit focuses on AI output, which argues that Midjourney users are creating images that are basically similar to the studio’s copyrighted works. In this sense, this lawsuit is different from other lawsuits, which only constitute AI training to constitute infringement.
In response, Midjourney noted that its users must comply with the Terms of Service, which prohibits intellectual property infringement. However, the company’s lawyers believe that simply creating images similar to works protected by copyright is not enough to show infringement.
“Indeed, there are many legal, non-invasive reasons to create images, including characters from popular culture, such as those claimed by the plaintiff, including non-commercial fan art, experimentation and conception, and social commentary and criticism,” Midjourney’s attorney wrote. “The plaintiff tried to stifle them.”
Midjourney is represented by Bobby Ghajar, John Paul Oleksiuk, Judd Lauter and Ellie Dupler of Cooley LLP. Ghajar also stands for Meta, in the case that the author accuses the company of illegally training its AI language models on books.
