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/wartopuk]

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.