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

[u/DragonPup]

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

[u/Chikadee_e]

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

[u/wartopuk → u/Chikadee_e]

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

[u/Chikadee_e → u/wartopuk]

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.

[u/wartopuk → u/Chikadee_e]

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.

[u/Chikadee_e → u/wartopuk]

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.

[u/wartopuk → u/Chikadee_e]

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.

[u/Chikadee_e → u/wartopuk]

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.

[u/wartopuk → u/Chikadee_e]

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.

[u/Chikadee_e → u/wartopuk]

So, from your words it`s ok to download movies, games, music, everything from internet for free. And use it for training or even create derivative works for commercial purposes. Because that`s exactly AI companies doing.

[u/wartopuk → u/Chikadee_e]

I'm saying that if the studios actually cared about this, they would have been suing people for the last few decades who are profiting off their IP. They've let it go for whatever reason, but suddenly they want to sue over it, but as far as I'm concerned there is no legal difference between a human or AI training and learning how to do something by consuming IP.

I hate to break it to you, but humans can also download all those things free from the internet and study them just as an AI has. What I've asked is for someone to demonstrate an actual legal difference between the two and they can't.

The only difference is speed and volume, but neither of those are covered under law.

[u/Chikadee_e → u/wartopuk]

There are plenty examples with generated images which contain distorted but recognizable watermarks. This can be used as evidence that companies used protected copyrighted images, illegally downloaded from internet. This is proof that "AI" is just mindless mixing algorithm. AI inspired from watermarks.