According to court filings, Midjourney wants the studios to produce internal records related to their AI efforts, including business plans, research reports, training datasets, model weights, and presentations discussing AI. The company argues those materials could show whether the studios are using similar training practices while pursuing claims against Midjourney.
A magistrate judge previously ruled that the studios only had to provide documents related to “consumer-facing” AI applications. Midjourney is now asking the federal court to overturn that decision, arguing the restriction prevents access to evidence that could support its legal defenses.
In its filing, Midjourney said the withheld documents could demonstrate whether the studios are “doing exactly what they are suing Midjourney for doing.” The company also argued the limitation “unfairly” allows the studios “to cherry-pick only those documents they believe support their market harm claims while depriving Midjourney of documents that would support its defenses.”
Midjourney contends that evidence showing the studios train their own AI models using copyrighted material would support its fair use argument and its “unclean hands” defense. Attorney Bobby Ghajar wrote, “If Plaintiffs are doing the very thing they seek to punish, that evidence goes to the heart of Midjourney’s fair use and unclean hands defenses.”
The startup also wants the studios to disclose all prompts they used with Midjourney, along with the corresponding generated images, instead of only the prompts tied to the allegedly infringing outputs cited in the lawsuit.
The studios have opposed the broader discovery request. Their lead attorney, David Singer, previously described Midjourney’s efforts as a “fishing expedition.” He also said the studios “do not seek to stop AI technology or even shut down Midjourney’s business,” but instead want the company “to stop copying their movies and TV shows and to stop distributing, publicly displaying, publicly performing, and creating derivative works that include copies of famous characters without authorization.”
The outcome of the discovery dispute could influence how courts handle evidence requests involving AI development in future copyright cases, particularly when defendants seek access to internal AI practices to support fair use arguments.
This analysis is based on reporting from Engadget.
Image courtesy of AI Insider.
This article was generated with AI assistance and reviewed for accuracy and quality.
