On September 4, several businesses of Warner Bros. Discovery (WBD) filed a copyright lawsuit against the generative AI platform provider Midjourney Inc., contending that Midjourney sells a commercial subscription service that lets subscribers pick Warner Bros. Discovery copyrighted characters.
The nature and rationale behind the Warner Bros complaint was very similar to the June 2025 Complaint by film-making units of Disney and Universal, which contend that Midjourney was enabling its users to generate unauthorized copies of its copyrighted works, and had also been promoting that service itself, using that content.
“Midjourney is the quintessential copyright free-rider and a bottomless pit of plagiarism. Piracy is piracy, and whether an infringing image or video is made with AI or another technology does not make it any less infringing,” said Disney/Universal’s June complaint.
Warner Bros. Discovery related to Disney/Universal
On September 5, the US District Court for the Central District of California filed a document under the Disney matter (Case 2:25-cv-05275) that “this action is related to Warner Bros. Entertainment Co., et al. v. Midjourney, Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-08376 (the “Warner Bros. Discovery Action”) which was filed on September 4, 2025…”
In both cases, “…simple prompts featuring one of the plaintiffs’ copyrighted characters doing any number of actions, (causes) the Midjourney service (to) generate, display, and make available for download a high-quality image and video featuring the requested character doing the requested action.”
6 stored by the Service and then reproduced, publicly displayed, and made available for
7 download an image output that copies Warner Bros. Discovery’s Superman. Source: US District Court for Central District of California Case 2:25-cv-08376 Document #1
Therefore, “because the Warner Bros. Discovery Action and this action both give rise to the same or substantially similar questions of law and fact that would result in substantial duplication of labor if overseen by two of this District’s judges.”
This situation led to Court recommending that the two cases be “related … under Local Rule 83-1.3.1.”
Why it matters
The court reasoned that both cases “will require the Court to adjudicate the same or substantially related or similar questions of law and, if necessary, will require a jury to determine virtually identical fact issues concerning Midjourney’s service and conduct. … Allowing these cases to proceed separately and without being related would necessarily result in “substantial duplication of labor if heard by different judges … as well as duplicative testimony from witnesses and duplicative briefing by the parties.
“Additionally, if the cases are not related (and, ideally, consolidated), there is a risk of potentially conflicting rulings on legal and/or factual disputes.”
Further reading
Warner Bros. Discovery (et al) v. Midjourney Inc. Document #1. Complaint. Case #2:25-cv-08376-JAK-E. US District Court for the Central District of California.
Disney Enterprises Inc, Universal City Studio Productions LLLP, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Midjourney, Inc. Notice of Related Cases. Case #2:25-cv-05275-JAK-AJR. US District Court for the Central District of California.
MPA statement on copyright infringement lawsuit filed by Warner Bros Discovery against Midjourney. Press release. September 5, 2025. Motion Picture Association
Piracy is Piracy: Studios sue Midjourney, whose AI platform derives images from copyrighted works. Article. June 12, 2025. by Steven Hawley. Piracy Monitor
