Disney v. Midjourney is a copyright suit filed on 11 June 2025 in the Central District of California by Disney Enterprises, Marvel Characters, MVL Film Finance, Lucasfilm and Twentieth Century Fox Film (together “Disney”) and Universal City Studios Productions and DreamWorks Animation (“Universal”) against Midjourney, Inc.[1] By June 2026 the court’s caption showed that it had been consolidated for all purposes with a later action by Warner Bros. Entertainment and affiliated companies, No. 2:25-cv-08376.[3]
Background
The complaint describes Midjourney’s image service as a “virtual vending machine” that generates unauthorised copies of Disney and Universal characters in response to text prompts from subscribers. It alleges that the service was developed using unauthorised copies of the studios’ works, that it makes available and distributes further copies and derivatives, and that Midjourney used the characters to market the service. It alleges that Midjourney has millions of subscribers and made USD 300 million in the previous year, and that it ignored requests to stop and to adopt technical measures to prevent infringing outputs.[1] It also describes a planned video service and alleges that training for it had begun.[1]
The dispute
The complaint pleads two claims. The first is direct copyright infringement by reproducing, publicly displaying, distributing and making derivative works of the plaintiffs’ works. The second is secondary copyright infringement, pleaded in the alternative in case Midjourney argues that its subscribers, and not Midjourney, are the direct infringers.[1] The plaintiffs ask for damages and profits or statutory damages, an accounting, and preliminary and permanent injunctive relief.[1] To show that Midjourney can control outputs, the complaint points to the platform’s own Terms of Service, which prohibit adult content, gore and political campaign images and state that some text inputs are blocked automatically, and argues that Midjourney chose not to use comparable measures for copyrighted characters.[1] For the terms themselves see Midjourney Terms of Service, billing and organisations.
Midjourney answered on 6 August 2025 and demanded a jury trial. It denied the allegations unless admitted, and pleaded seven affirmative defences: fair use; lack of ownership or standing; actual or implied licence; acquiescence, estoppel and waiver; unclean hands; de minimis copying; and failure of notice together with reliance on the DMCA safe harbours.[2]
Decision or outcome
The case is pending. No ruling on liability, fair use or the pleadings appears in the records reviewed. On 22 June 2026 Midjourney filed an opposition, in redacted form, to a motion to compel production of training source code, under the consolidated caption, and the contents show that discovery had begun.[3] The outcome field is therefore “pending” and the article will need updating when the court rules.
Significance for software licensing and SAM practice
The complaint treats the service operator as the direct infringer and the subscriber’s conduct as the alternative, which means that a customer’s plan and terms do not remove the question whether outputs that reproduce well-known characters are lawful. Midjourney’s Terms make the customer responsible for its content and require the customer to indemnify Midjourney, and they provide no indemnity in the customer’s favour, as set out in Midjourney commercial use, ownership and Stealth Mode and Midjourney licensing. An organisation that uses Midjourney output in commercial work should therefore treat the characters, logos and styles of third parties as its own risk and avoid prompts that name them. The related artist class action, which also names Midjourney, is described in Andersen v. Stability AI.
Lessons learned
- Output control is evidence. The complaint relies on the service’s own content restrictions to argue it could block infringing prompts.[1]
- Secondary liability is pleaded as a fallback. The plaintiffs plead that Midjourney is liable even if subscribers are the direct infringers.[1]
- Defences go beyond fair use. Midjourney pleaded implied licence, acquiescence and the DMCA safe harbour among its defences.[2]
- Source code is contested. A motion to compel Midjourney’s training source code was being opposed in June 2026.[3]