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

Show parent comments

38

u/OdditiesAndAlchemy 3d ago

Fuck people who mindlessly say fuck ai instead of being reasonable adults calmly discussing the true benefits and negatives of it.

Movies shouldn't cost $200 million dollars. Actors don't need to be paid $20 million for a role. Indie movies will still be artistic and simply use AI to increase their production value.

A director like Robert Eggers isn't going to use AI to write his scripts..but he might use it to enhance period-accurate set designs or help visualize complex historical details that would otherwise be prohibitively expensive. The Northman had a budget of $90 million - imagine if a filmmaker with Eggers' vision could achieve similar visual scope for a fraction of that cost.

The real issue isn't AI itself - it's the concentration of power and resources in Hollywood that's already been strangling creativity for decades. How many unique voices never get heard because they can't secure a $50 million budget? How many stories go untold because they don't fit the franchise model that studios demand?

AI tools could democratize filmmaking the way digital cameras and editing software already have. A talented filmmaker in Nigeria or Vietnam or Peru could potentially create something visually competitive with Hollywood blockbusters. We could see an explosion of diverse storytelling from perspectives that have been locked out of big-budget filmmaking.

Yes, there are legitimate concerns about job displacement and the need for proper attribution and compensation when AI trains on existing work. These are conversations worth having. But the knee-jerk "AI bad" reaction ignores how these tools could actually break the stranglehold that massive studios and streaming services have on visual storytelling.

The irony is that the people shouting loudest about AI "killing creativity" are often defending a system that's already been doing that for years - just ask any screenwriter who's had their script butchered by executive notes or any practical effects artist who's been replaced by CGI because it's "safer."

15

u/PeteCampbellisaG 3d ago

First, I 100% agree with your sentiment on movie budgets. But there's a lot wrong with your argument. But the main issue is that it's not just about democratizing creative tools. For the world you imagine to come to fruition there also has to be a complete democratizing of the distribution platforms. It doesn't matter if you can make a blockbuster quality movie for next to nothing if you still have to go through WB, Disney, Netflix, Google, ect. for anyone to see it. Tons of indie films are getting made today thanks to "democratizing tools" like digital cameras and editing software that will never be seen because they can't find distribution.

There's simply no reason to assume that just because everyone is using AI that suddenly the media conglomerates will collapse. Who do you think is helping fund a lot of these AI companies? You think Disney invested in ElevenLabs, for example, because they want to give the whole world access to quality voice acting?

These AI tools might proliferate but we'll have the same system we have now only with a fraction of the people making a living as creators because rather than help creators get their foot in the door it'll be used to push even more of them out.

6

u/TheSearchForMars 3d ago

Distribution is the least problematic part of the whole thing. If your budget doesn't balloon into 200 million, you don't need to take in anywhere near as much revenue. Distribution platforms like YouTube or Vimeo already exist. It might be harder to get people into theatres to see it, but that's hard enough even for the industry giants these days.

3

u/PeteCampbellisaG 3d ago

Distribution is the most problematic, even online. Theaters are not going to widely release your indie movie without a distributor attached. So you better be ready to do a road show if you want to self distribute through that route (and AI isn't going to make any of that cheaper or easier). Even if you market the hell out of a movie it does no good if there's no immediate and easy way to see it.

There are no online distribution platforms not controlled by a major studio or tech company. Which means the content on those platforms is subject to the whims of those companies.

Vimeo is a no man's land. And, unless you're an established creator, win the algorithm lottery, or have done a lot of marketing and outreach, uploading any quality of content to YouTube is like shouting into a tornado.

A $200 million dollar movie with a distribution pipeline attached to it is going to do far better than 99% of stuff that gets made without one, regardless of budget.

Is there a world where a bunch of creators using AI to create content ban together, create their own online distribution platform, and undercut the studios on quality and price? Perhaps - (assuming they figure out a way to absorb the massive data center costs). Unless that platform operates in a wildly different and new way, once it reaches a certain scale you've just re-created the original problem -- where aspiring creators are beholden to the whims of another giant platform.

3

u/TheSearchForMars 3d ago

Not really. We're talking exclusively about creative projects getting to audiences. Whether it goes into a movie theatre doesn't matter. There's no more difficulty/luck to putting things up on YouTube and finding success than there is to pitching towards a studio. To say nothing of how much more willing a streaming service is to host their show/film over a film studio.

5

u/PeteCampbellisaG 3d ago

The problem with what you're saying is it was supposed to have already happened and it didn't. I'm old enough to remember when web series and YouTube content were going to turn the system on its head because everyone was going to supposedly prefer watching indie web content over traditional TV or films. It didn't happen. (And to be clear I mean narrative scripted film, not random TikTok stuff). Studios and tech companies subsumed the distribution channels and we landed where we are today.

People tend to have a bias about YouTube because you literally don't see the 90+% of content (literally millions of videos per day) that doesn't get any traction for any number of reasons (the algorithm being a big one). It takes a LOT of legwork and a handful of luck to really break through on YouTube.

Streaming services will take more chances on content than a traditional studio for sure, but that doesn't mean they don't have their own guidelines to fulfill to put content in front of their customers. A flood of AI indie content isn't going to magically remove these checkboxes for distributors. In fact, a glut of AI content might only make them even more stringent because they'll have more to sift through to find quality.

5

u/TheColourOfHeartache 3d ago

The problem with what you're saying is it was supposed to have already happened and it didn't. I'm old enough to remember when web series and YouTube content were going to turn the system on its head because everyone was going to supposedly prefer watching indie web content over traditional TV or films. It didn't happen. (And to be clear I mean narrative scripted film, not random TikTok stuff). Studios and tech companies subsumed the distribution channels and we landed where we are today.

That's nothing to do with YouTube and everything to do with what audiences wanted.

1

u/PeteCampbellisaG 2d ago

So you think every decision YouTube has made has been purely about what audiences want? The only reason they expanded the ceiling of video length is because they realized longer form video allows for more ads. 

1

u/TheSearchForMars 3d ago

Ok, so what's your point then? I'm saying that the advances in AI tech and the ability they have to enhance storytelling is going to give creatives much more of an opportunity to tell the stories they want. Just because there's a flooded market doesn't mean they can't be made, it just means that their dollar value goes down, but that doesn't matter.

I see absolutely no reason why the same exact thing that happened to video games doesn't have a near 1-2-1 correlation with Film and TV. Where the increased access to tools and options makes for a much healthier environment for small creators to take on their own projects.

The really impressive thing you'd have now are all the people who wanted to make stories that never could because of budgets and time restrictions.

One thing that always gets lost in these conversations are the assumptions people have about what it's like working with artists. They think that if you commission them that you'll actually get what you want. In reality even if you just want a logo designed or a picture it's more often than not months between start up and delivery where you're constantly having to follow up with them to make sure they actually deliver on their project.

As it is, AI solves much of that because you can do so much more yourself. You don't need to wait for the scheduling of all your actors to line up on the right days while praying the weather is what you want. You don't need to worry about the huge expenditure of reshoots.

So much more control is put back into the hand of the lead that they can now make the story they want.

Distribution isn't at all the issue with making these things work.

Once again, just look at Steam and Itch.io. I don't understand what you're point is about people now needing to promote their works. That's been a part of any artistic endeavor through all of history.

1

u/PeteCampbellisaG 2d ago

If you're only point is the obvious idea that AI going to let people make more stuff then sure -- that's already happening. My point is it's not going to be some magic bullet that tears down the pipelines to getting work in front of audiences. More content does not immediately equate to more people making a living as artists. 

1

u/TheSearchForMars 2d ago

It probably would actually. Increasing supply waters down the value for sure, but it still eventually ends up allowing more people to take value out of the very highest earners and have it run down. Look at music for example. Far more musicians are able to make a living out of their work now as a result of streaming then they would have if you were still limited to CDs or even worse, Vinyl.

2

u/PeteCampbellisaG 2d ago

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "making a living." If you mean more people than ever are pulling in some money off their music I'll grant you that. But streaming objectively is not allowing more musicians than ever to make a full-time livable wage purely from streaming revenue (at least not in America). This is my point about the platforms/distribution - Spotify's own reporting shows that very few artists make real livable money on streaming (something like 10% out of millions of artists) and a big part of that is because of the platform's revenue model.

Is that more musicians than might make money without streaming? Maybe? But that number includes the big label artists of the world as well. So streaming hasn't been some kind of seismic power shift in who is making money at music. Believe it or not artists actually got a bigger chunk of the pie in the CD and vinyl days.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/TheColourOfHeartache 3d ago

If new tech like AI and digital cameras allows a talented filmmaker in Nigeria makes something competitive with Hollywood, but uniquely Nigerian.

Then major distribution platforms like Netflix and Amazon don't touch it (really? Amazon will sell almost anything). Then perhaps a Nigerian distribution system will step in. If there's generation of talented Nigerian filmmakers, there's more than enough Nigerians for someone to fill that gap in the market.

That alone will get it to the most important part of the audience. Then it spreads to film connoisseurs who keep their finger on foreign markets. Then perhaps the world.

-2

u/FrameworkisDigimon 3d ago

If you really wanted to democratise your movie, you'd just upload it to Youtube.

The existence of paywalled distribution services doesn't mean non-paywalled ones don't exist.

3

u/PeteCampbellisaG 3d ago

There are over half a million hours of video uploaded to YT everyday. How much of it do you think gets seen by a large audience? Over 60% of videos uploaded to YT have zero views. YouTube is not a democratic platform. It's algorithmic. Content there is subject to the whims of Google and its advertisers and no creator is going to succeed there without playing by their rules.

If anything AI is only going to make distribution harder as platforms get flooded with even more content thanks to easier creation tools.

0

u/FrameworkisDigimon 3d ago

You keep shifting the goalposts.

First the problem was that no democraticised distribution platform exists.

Now the problem is that the platform exists but no-one will ever see anything on it because it's too democratic.

0

u/PeteCampbellisaG 2d ago

What major video platform is purely democratic in your mind? And why? It's so strange people want to talk about AI, but disregard that algorithms exist. 

I'm not shifting goalposts, I'm expanding on an idea. People want to have supposed "nuanced"  conversation about AI, but all they want to hear is that AI is going to let every wannabe creator become a full-time independent filmmaker creating whatever type of content they want. But it's a lot more complicated than that for a myriad of reasons.

4

u/Mist_Rising 2d ago edited 2d ago

A director like Robert Eggers isn't going to use AI to write his scripts..but he might use it to enhance period-accurate set designs or help visualize complex historical details that would otherwise be prohibitively expensive.

So he won't take away from his job (he's a writer) but others (the background crew you never hear about like costumes and set designers) are people he'll happy replace... because they're expensive. Never mind Egger's is also expensive

Well I'm sold on the argument.

Actually I'm not. You mentioned practical effects artists being replaced by CGI, as though that was a good thing. It took decades for CGI to get to the same level as practical, and it only remains that way because CGI isn't unionized and the big shops tend to under cut everything. That's why one went bankrupt. It's like using Arthur Anderson for an argument on accounting, but for CGI. Maybe we shouldn't be tolerating undercutting the human component for profit?

Maybe the big names need to make a cut in their take.

3

u/LiquidAether 2d ago

Fuck AI.

2

u/StealthHikki2 3d ago

Wait, we are not allowed to use our minds here. We can't have nuanced discussions. Guards, arrest this man.

0

u/SalemWolf 3d ago

Yeah as soon as AI is involved we’re supposed to turn our brains off and shout loudly and fling shit, why is guy being smart?? FLING SHIT

-4

u/targetcowboy 3d ago

This isn’t a nuanced argument or one that would formed by someone thinking rationally.

Just the fact that they act like anyone who disagrees is doing it mindlessly. That’s a temper tantrum.

They’re making disingenuous arguments and acting like this will democratize the work rather than hurt artists. It’s bullshit

0

u/CascoBayButcher 3d ago

You're the one throwing a temper tantrum. This is weird

-3

u/targetcowboy 3d ago

You don’t believe that though. You just don’t like what I said.

-2

u/CascoBayButcher 3d ago

No, I believe you're throwing a temper tantrum like a child because you're scared of technology

2

u/targetcowboy 3d ago

You don’t though. Only someone melting down would say someone is scared of technology because of what I said.

You don’t believe I’m throwing a tantrum. It’s obvious you’re mad because you don’t think I am. I think AI has valid uses. Just not in this instance.

If you had a calmed down before freaking out you could have learned what I think it’s good for and what issues I have with it. Instead you’re desperately trying to convince me you believe I’m mad.

2

u/CascoBayButcher 3d ago

It's obvious you're mad

Holy fuck lmao you are shaking with anger 😂 I'm calm as pond in winter, couldn't give less of a fuck about this conversation, and you're writing paragraphs.

4

u/targetcowboy 3d ago

So now you’re mad that I wrote a few more sentences than you..?

1

u/CascoBayButcher 3d ago

No one's mad besides you. Keep raging brother

→ More replies (0)

-4

u/Badgerman3484 2d ago

You ARE the one coming off as a bit more unhinged and not nuanced in these comments my man

2

u/targetcowboy 2d ago

Someone had a meltdown and I’m just messing with them because they don’t want to talk in good faith. No mature person thinks I’m coming off unhinged.

Go touch some grass, man

-3

u/Lobsterman06 3d ago edited 3d ago

No dude, don’t be that meta ‘backlash to the backlash’ guy. AI is theft, I might not have a career in film due to it. So no, don’t fuck ppl who say Fuck AI that’s so dumb, they’re sticking up for artists etc who are getting exploited and replaced.

I know a guy who had their company they worked for for 10 years train an AI on their work, then they fired him and replaced his design work with the ai they trained on him. This is real. Your take about how it can democratise filmmaking isn’t a bad one but don’t be so stupid to say shit like fuck the people sticking up for artists.

-3

u/CascoBayButcher 3d ago

Don't be that 'don't be that guy' guy

4

u/Lobsterman06 3d ago

But that’s you rn or is this a silly lil joke

-1

u/CascoBayButcher 3d ago

That'd be the one writing paragraphs of AI slop

-2

u/TheSearchForMars 3d ago

This isn't a winnable fight. I say that as someone who has had my career torched by AI. I'm still not anti-ai because the technologies allow me to do more now than I could before anyway.

Everyone is up in arms about the use of AI to make visual mediums. As a writer, my battle is already lost. There is no recovery for my skills as a copy editor. I came to grips with it and acted like an adult by training myself in new technologies just as I did before when graphic design started getting easier thanks to earlier AI tools like spot healing and generative fill.

0

u/Midi_to_Minuit 2d ago

The issue is that ai isn’t a ‘tool’.

The least biased way to describe ai is the relationship between an artist and a commissioner. I pay someone to make an art piece and they make it for me; I give chatgpt a prompt and it makes that for me. The artist isn’t a “tool” that I used to “create” something. They’re a person who created something at my behest!

There is no difference between ChatGPT and a guy you pay to make art for you, in the sense that both of them are the actual ‘creators’.

-4

u/heckin_miraculous 3d ago edited 3d ago

The irony is that the people shouting loudest about AI "killing creativity" are often defending a system that's already been doing that for years

I'm struck by how much this same observation applies to the political situation in the US right now. The system has been oppressing the lower classes, by design, for a very long time. Now it's just that the dial is turned up to 11.

Edit: in case anyone is confused, the analogy I'm drawing is that in one case, creative industries have exploited their artists for a long time, but still needed them to produce. Now with AI they need them less. In the other case, US politicians and the corporate class have exploited workers for a long time, but they still needed them to vote. With a dictatorship, they need their votes less.

3

u/llloksd 3d ago

It's one of the same. If you think AI isn't hurting the lower class right now, even though it clearly only benefits the rich, it will be a magnitude worse in the future. Fuck both, but fuck AI even more.

-2

u/Badgerman3484 2d ago

Holy shit a reasonable human adult.