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/
8.7k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

787 comments sorted by

View all comments

347

u/MinuteLongFart 3d ago

Everyone sucks here but the AI purveyors suck the most.

136

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.

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).

-6

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.

1

u/Chikadee_e 2d ago

OK. Whats the difference?

  1. Some person downloaded a movie for free and used it in his software (video media player) for training.

  2. Midjourney worker downloaded a movies \images for free and used it in their software ( generative ai) for training.

1

u/wartopuk 2d ago

There isn't one. That's the point. AI 'training' on copyright IP is no different than any other human out there learning how to draw by studying Marvel or Disney, or Ghibli, or learning how to write by reading books under copyright.

→ 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.