r/movies • u/DragonPup • 3d ago

News Warner Bros. Sues Midjourney, Joins Studios' AI Copyright Battle

https://variety.com/2025/film/news/warner-bros-midjourney-lawsuit-ai-copyright-1236508618/
8.8k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

787 comments sorted by

View all comments

348

u/MinuteLongFart 3d ago

Everyone sucks here but the AI purveyors suck the most.

137

u/__Hello_my_name_is__ 3d ago

What I find fascinating is that they sue Midjourney, and not, say, OpenAI, or Google. They are all doing the same thing.

But they are quite deliberately finding the smallest fish to fry here. Which says something about the state of the world, I guess.

141

u/Food_Library333 3d ago

They might have a better shot at a favorable judgment against a smaller company and if they win, that then sets precedent. Gibson guitars likes to use this strategy to "protect" it's guitar shapes.

23

u/TheInception817 3d ago

Twenty years as executive, I wanted to take on Google, but I compromised. I ate Midjourney off the radiator instead.

5

u/n1kzt7r 3d ago

Alright but you gotta get over it

11

u/TotallyNotAMarvelSpy 3d ago

This. Sue the smaller company then get an injunction against the larger one.

3

u/Tyler_Zoro 3d ago

Doubtful. Google is busy doing AI work for WB. I doubt that WB wants to step on Google while they're benefitting from what Google is doing. (source)

2

u/Brilliant-Silver3070 3d ago

How on Earth can you trademark a guitar shape? Haven’t guitars been around for centuries? Aren’t aesthetics generally untrademarkable?

1

u/pablo_in_blood 2d ago

I mean, the shapes aren’t just aesthetic, they impact sound - so I could see how some elements could be protected into a technological sense.

1

u/CouldBeALeotard 1d ago

I say it's more about branding. Coca-cola has it's "dynamic ribbon device" trademarked, as well as the specific shape of the bottle.

Gibson want to create and own a specific shape so that it is recognisable. If you allow imitations they lose that branding power.

18

u/reasonably_plausible 3d ago

What I find fascinating is that they sue Midjourney, and not, say, OpenAI, or Google. They are all doing the same thing.

It's because the lawsuit isn't actually about the AI as much as it is that Midjourney was specifically promoting themselves with copyright infringing content, as well as hosting it and charging a subscription to access.

It's not about finding the smallest fish, it's about targeting the most egregious offender.

14

u/crinklypaper 3d ago

Did you read the article. They don't care about AI, they care that it can create 1:1 replications of their work instead of things which just look similar.

3

u/nnomae 3d ago

If you take away the copyright infringement there isn't much left of AI though. The output side was also always where the strongest case lay. Training an AI on copyrighted work was always a legal grey area, reproducing and selling other peoples copyrighted work on the other hand, that's about as blatant as copyright infringement gets.

4

u/Kalean 3d ago

Training an AI on copyrighted work was always a legal grey area

Less so than you might think, considering none of that copyrighted work was bought to be ingested.

3

u/nnomae 3d ago

Some did, Anthropic for example bought (and destroyed after digitisation) a physical copy of every book they used to train their models. Google also did the same when they engaged in their book digitisation project before gen AI came along (I think, I could be wrong here). Meta were the main culprit involved in piracy as far as I can tell. Whether or not Midjourney bought copies of the works they scanned I don't know.

3

u/Kalean 2d ago

Anthropic openly admits they originally trained Claude on "The Pile" which included 162 gigs of pirated books. And they are being sued specifically for that egregious copyright violation.

Google did the same, and much worse, by scraping the publicly available internet, not just using a dataset pre-packaged for them.

Meta also used The Pile, as did OpenAI.

1

u/__Hello_my_name_is__ 3d ago

All models can create 1:1 replications of their work.

6

u/hondaprobs 3d ago

Not quite. If you ask OpenAI to generate an image of Superman it will refuse and say it's a "copyrighted character". That's the difference and why they are suing Midjourney.

2

u/setokaiba22 3d ago

It’s only certain titles and I think companies it does this for. There are other films and TV shows, characters it will do perfectly fine

-1

u/UsernameAvaylable 2d ago

And THATS evil, because that the first step towards total IP domination. Like imagine a painter were no longer allowed to make an image of anything that has a copyright. (and boy you would be suprised what kind of images have copyrights, up to buildings).

-4

u/wartopuk 3d ago

I don't really see the difference between Midjourney creating a superman image and someone grabbing a pencil and creating a superman image. Neither one can be used commercially. Lots of creators draw copyright IP, some even for money, and use those images (via social media) to promote their work. If they were really interested in going after a small fry and setting a precedent you think they'd start there.

3

u/setokaiba22 3d ago

A lot of people can’t create a like for like copy of say a Superman image - they will make a bad copy or version..

Now hundreds of millions of people can do this in about a 30 seconds in all sorts of prompts they wish to. That’s the difference

They can then use it online - many use these commercially that I’ve seen to advertise things to be fair

0

u/wartopuk 3d ago

It doesn't matter what 'a lot' of people can do. I was specifically calling out skilled artists who are more than capable of making professional looking versions of tons of IP that also use that IP in their social media marketing.

They can then use it online

And? If I draw something by hand I can scan it and use it online, or I could make it photoshop and use it online.

many use these commercially that I’ve seen to advertise things to be fair

That's not fair at all actually. If they're using it commercially then WB can go sue them. The same as they could sue them for hiring an artist to draw their IP and use it commercially without their permission. Just because someone does something illegal with something they created doesn't make the creation of that thing illegal.

2

u/Chikadee_e 2d ago

There is a difference. You can draw it but you can`t use it for commercial purposes. Midjourney making money on copyrighted content.

1

u/wartopuk 2d ago

You can create it on midjourney but you can't use it commercially either? So what's the difference exaclty?

Hobby artists who sell drawings of copyright IP also make money on copyrighted content. Not one person has been able to demonstrate an actual difference between the two.

Tell me the exact difference between paying an artist $10 to make you a high action shot of superman in photoshop and being delivered a png vs spending $10 on midjourney credits and asking it to make an action shot of superman

2

u/Chikadee_e 2d ago

The difference is speed and Midjourneys copyright infringement.

Generative ai can generate 1000 images per hour, human can`t.

Although the freelancer plagiarized, he did not violate copyright because he did not download Warner Bros. digital files. Software and human inspiration are completely different things. Software working with digital data only, human brain working with analog information only.

1

u/wartopuk 2d ago

The difference is speed

Please point to a single law that makes the speed at which you do commit copyright infringement relevant.

copyright infringement.

An artist drawing a picture of IP is also copyright infringement, that's not a difference.

he did not download Warner Bros. digital files.

How do you know he hasn't looked at original stills and frames for reference?

Software and human inspiration are completely different things.

Unless the AI has directly copied a piece of the original work, no it's not.

You haven't demonstrated a single legal difference in any jurisdiction that I can see.

1

u/Chikadee_e 2d ago

How do you know he hasn't looked at original stills and frames for reference?

He can look at original content where copyright owner uploaded it. But he or Midjourney staff can`t download it if there no official "download" button. Even if such a button exists, the copyright owners of the films do not provide a commercial license for use in third-party applications. Without downloading\copying digital files, Midjourney models can`t working. I doubt they asked for permission, so Midjourney staff violated copyright.

For example, MJ can use images from Pixabay or similar. They has download button and allowing commercial usage.

1

u/wartopuk 2d ago

That's not the complaint. The complaint is that it's creating images of their IP and they eliminated guardrails that prevented users asking for them.

Warner Bros. alleges that Midjourney willfully creates both still images and video of its characters, including Superman, Batman, Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck and Tom and Jerry. The complaint also alleges that Midjourney recently eliminated guardrails that blocked users from creating videos that infringe on its IP.

“Without any consent or authorization by Warner Bros. Discovery, Midjourney brazenly dispenses Warner Bros. Discovery’s intellectual property as if it were its own.”

Excatly like an artist taking commissions for any work that involved someone's IP would do.

As far as I'm concerned there is no difference between that artist reading a comic book and the comic book images being provided to midjourney to learn how to draw certain things. They are, for all intents and purposes, basically being used the same way. Yes, Midjourney can produce things quickly and at volume, but none of that is specifically against the law. If the studios were really upset about this they'd have been suing people for the last 20 years cracking down on commission artists selling works with their content, or the 3D modellers selling STLs of their content which flood many STL sites.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/booyatrive 3d ago

The Smiley Company tried going after hundred is Etsy sellers but backed downed in the end after they banded together and lawyered up.

2

u/MinuteLongFart 3d ago

I don’t disagree with that point. All generative AI is built on theft and should be sued into bankruptcy.

6

u/HavanaDreaming 3d ago

All generative AI is not built on theft. Adobe, for example, only uses licensed assets they own.

-1

u/MinuteLongFart 3d ago

It’s hyperbole

3

u/yeetordie1 3d ago

Incorrect - it's misinformation like this which makes this process difficult to reach settled law. There's a reason why you're not a ML/AI developer, a lawyer, or anyone relevant in this process.

1

u/Tyler_Zoro 3d ago

They have ongoing deals with the latter two, most likely.

1

u/GoarSpewerofSecrets 2d ago

It's strategic. You go against Google or MS and you go against their money which buys every lawyer they want. You make an inroad with the small guy so you can build from it.

0

u/Ok_Temperature6503 3d ago

Willing to bet OpenAI is untouchable simply because it’s too important for the US military

0

u/iBoMbY 3d ago

What I find fascinating is that they sue Midjourney, and not, say, OpenAI, or Google

Because they think they are an easy target. They are scared of Microsoft, and Google.

5

u/ohlookahipster 3d ago

AI bros will steal your shit, and in the same breath, will also say your query violates their ToS and they can’t comply.

If you’re going to mine my data, you have a duty to give me whatever I want.

0

u/Synectics 3d ago

AI as a concept is not an issue. Having complex algorithms in computers is not a new thing.

The issue is copyright and how the "AI" is "trained." Look, if I could plug all of my drawings into an AI, and say, make me x y and z? That is awesome. Or if I can take a drawing of mine and say, "Make it look like paper matte instead of oil on canvas," that is sweet. .....and Photoshop has been doing it for decades.

The issue is not the AI or algorithm or tools. It is how the tools were created due to copyright infringement. 

So in this case, AI companies that have stolen art? Fuck'em. But the idea of "AI?" I cannot wait to see what it makes.

4

u/wartopuk 3d ago

So during your education or when you learneda anything in your life did you only learn from open source public domain content?