Disney and Universal sue AI image creator Midjourney, alleging copyright infringement

TruthLens AI Suggested Headline:

"Disney and Universal File Lawsuit Against Midjourney for Copyright Infringement"

View Raw Article Source (External Link)
Raw Article Publish Date:
AI Analysis Average Score: 7.3
These scores (0-10 scale) are generated by Truthlens AI's analysis, assessing the article's objectivity, accuracy, and transparency. Higher scores indicate better alignment with journalistic standards. Hover over chart points for metric details.

TruthLens AI Summary

Disney and Universal have filed a lawsuit against the artificial intelligence company Midjourney, claiming that its AI-powered image generator has unlawfully reproduced their copyrighted characters. The lawsuit, lodged in federal court in Los Angeles, describes Midjourney's practices as a "bottomless pit of plagiarism," alleging that the company has made and distributed numerous unauthorized copies of iconic characters such as Darth Vader from Star Wars, Elsa from Frozen, and the Minions from Despicable Me. Disney's Chief Legal Officer, Horacio Gutierrez, emphasized the importance of responsible AI technology, while asserting that piracy, regardless of the perpetrator, is still piracy. The studios are seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent Midjourney from further infringing on their works and are pursuing unspecified damages for the alleged copyright violations.

The lawsuit reflects a broader trend of legal disputes surrounding the use of generative artificial intelligence and its implications for copyright law. This case stands out as one of the first major lawsuits from leading entertainment companies specifically targeting image and video content generated by AI, following previous legal actions related to text and music. Midjourney, which monetizes its image generation service through paid subscriptions and reportedly generated $300 million in revenue last year, has previously faced accusations regarding its practices of using copyrighted material to train its AI systems. The ongoing litigation against Midjourney is part of a larger wave of lawsuits from various copyright holders, including authors and news outlets, against technology companies over unauthorized use of copyrighted materials for AI training. As the legal landscape continues to evolve, the outcome of this case could have significant implications for the future of AI development and copyright enforcement.

TruthLens AI Analysis

The news article highlights a significant legal development in the entertainment industry, where Disney and Universal have filed a lawsuit against Midjourney, an artificial intelligence image creator, for alleged copyright infringement. This case raises important questions about the intersection of technology, creativity, and intellectual property rights.

Intended Message and Public Perception

The article seems to aim at reinforcing the narrative that protecting intellectual property is crucial in an era where AI technologies are increasingly prevalent. By portraying Midjourney as a "bottomless pit of plagiarism," the studios aim to evoke a strong emotional response from the public, suggesting that the integrity of creative work is under threat. This approach seeks to galvanize support from creators and consumers who value original content.

Potential Concealments

While the article focuses on the legal battle, it may obscure the broader implications of AI in creative fields. There is a growing debate about the ethics of AI-generated content and how it may revolutionize creativity, which this lawsuit could inadvertently stifle. By concentrating on the infringement claims, the article may divert attention from the potential benefits of AI collaboration with human artists.

Manipulation Assessment

The article carries a moderate level of manipulativeness due to its emotionally charged language and the framing of AI as inherently negative. The choice of words like "piracy" and "plagiarism" suggests moral wrongdoing, which could influence public sentiment against AI technologies. The emphasis on protecting artists' hard work may also serve to rally public support for the studios, potentially overshadowing the complexities of AI's role in creativity.

Credibility of the News

The information presented appears to be credible, as it references official statements from legal representatives of both Disney and Universal. However, the framing may lead readers to form a biased view of AI technologies without considering the nuances involved in copyright and generative art.

Broader Implications

This lawsuit could have ripple effects across various sectors, impacting the development and deployment of AI technologies in creative industries. If the courts side with Disney and Universal, it may set a precedent that could hinder innovation in AI image generation, potentially leading to a chilling effect on creativity and technological advancement.

Community Support and Target Audience

The article likely resonates more with traditional artists, creators, and those invested in the entertainment industry. By focusing on the protection of artists' rights, it appeals to individuals who may feel threatened by the rise of AI-generated content and who prioritize the value of original works.

Impact on Financial Markets

The lawsuit may have implications for stock prices in the tech and entertainment sectors. Companies involved in AI development or those that rely on original intellectual property may see increased scrutiny from investors. The legal outcomes could influence market perception regarding the viability of AI tools in creative spaces.

Geopolitical Considerations

While this news may not have direct geopolitical implications, it reflects broader trends in technology and intellectual property rights that are relevant globally. The ongoing discourse around AI ethics and copyright is increasingly relevant given today's technological advancements and their potential to disrupt established industries.

Use of AI in Writing

It is likely that AI tools were used in the creation of this article, especially in generating summaries or drafting initial content. The language and framing suggest a focus on engaging the reader's emotions, which AI models can enhance by analyzing effective communication strategies.

The article serves to inform the public about ongoing legal conflicts surrounding AI technologies while potentially manipulating perceptions of AI's role in creativity. The focus on copyright infringement raises important questions about the future of creative industries and the balance between innovation and intellectual property rights.

Unanalyzed Article Content

DisneyandUniversalsued anartificial intelligencecompany on Wednesday, alleging copyright infringement. In their lawsuit, the entertainment giants called Midjourney’s popular AI-powered image generator a “bottomless pit of plagiarism” for its alleged reproductions of the studios’ best-known characters.

The suit, filed in federal court in Los Angeles, claims Midjourney pirated the libraries of the two Hollywood studios, making and distributing without permission “innumerable” copies of their marquee characters such as Darth Vader from Star Wars, Elsa from Frozen, and the Minions from Despicable Me. Midjourney did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The suit by Disney and Universal over images and video represents a new frontier in the raging legal wars over the copyright and the creation of generative artificial intelligence. Previous suits have covered copyrighted text and music; Disney and Universal are two of the biggest industry players thus far to sue over images and videos.

Horacio Gutierrez, Disney’s chief legal officer, said in a statement: “We are bullish on the promise of AI technology and optimistic about how it can be used responsibly as a tool to further human creativity, but piracy is piracy, and the fact that it’s done by an AI company does not make it any less infringing.”

NBCUniversal’s executive vice-president and general counsel, Kim Harris, said the company was suing to “protect the hard work of all the artists whose work entertains and inspires us and the significant investment we make in our content”.

The studios claim the San Francisco company, one of the earliest to offer an AI product that generated images, rebuffed their request to stop infringing on their copyrighted works or, at a minimum, take technological measures to halt the creation of AI-generated images that copied the characters.

Instead, the studios argue, Midjourney continued to release new versions of its AI image service that boast higher-quality infringing images. Midjourney can recreate animated images from a typed request, or prompt. AI companies use enormous troves of data, often retrieved from millions of websites, to train programs to generate new images or text.

In a 2022 interview with Forbes, Midjourney CEO Holz said he built the company’s database by performing “a big scrape of the Internet”.

In the suit filed by seven corporate entities at the studios that own or control copyrights for the various Disney andUniversal Picturesfilm units, the studios offered examples of Midjourney animations that include Disney characters, such as Yoda wielding a lightsaber, Bart Simpson riding a skateboard, Marvel’s Iron Man soaring above the clouds and Pixar’s Buzz Lightyear taking flight. The image generator also recreated such Universal characters as How to Train Your Dragon’s dragon, Toothless, the green ogre Shrek and Po from Kung Fu Panda.

“By helping itself to plaintiffs’ copyrighted works, and then distributing images (and soon videos) that blatantly incorporate and copy Disney’s and Universal’s famous characters – without investing a penny in their creation – Midjourney is the quintessential copyright free-rider and a bottomless pit of plagiarism,” the suit alleges.

Disney and Universal asked the court for a preliminary injunction, to prevent Midjourney from copying their works, or offering its image- or video-generation service without protections against infringement. The studios also seek unspecified damages.

Midjourney, founded in 2021 by David Holz, monetizes the service through paid subscriptions and generated $300m in revenue last year alone, the studios said.

Sign up toTechScape

A weekly dive in to how technology is shaping our lives

after newsletter promotion

This is not the first time Midjourney has been accused of misusing artists’ work to train their AI systems. A year ago, a California federal judge found that 10 artists behind a copyright infringement suit against Midjourney, Stability AI and other companies had plausibly argued these AI companies had copied and stored their work on company servers, and could be liable for using it without permission. That ruling allowed the lawsuit over the unauthorized use of images to proceed. It is in the process of litigation.

The cases are part of a wave of lawsuits brought by copyright owners including authors, news outlets and record labels against tech companies over their use of copyrighted materials for AI training without permission.

Asked whether he sought consent of the artists whose work was covered by copyright, Holz responded: “there isn’t really a way to get a hundred million images and know where they’re coming from.” OpenAI said early last year in a filing to the UK government that it would be “impossible to train today’s leading AI models without using copyrighted materials”.

In late 2023, the New York Times sued OpenAI, maker of ChatGPT, and Microsoft, which owns a 49% stake in the startup, alleging unauthorized use and reproduction of its articles, which comprise a vast corpus of text. The suit is ongoing. Other news outlets, including the Guardian, have reached agreements to license their archives to artificial intelligence companies. Book authors have likewise sued Meta for alleged use of a huge database of pirated books to train its Llama AI models, though many of the writers’ claims have been dismissed.

In June 2024, major record labels sued two AI companies for copyright infringement. Sony Music Entertainment, Universal Music Group Recordings and Warner Records accused Suno and Udio of exploiting millions of songs to create engines that could “spit out” obviously derivative music.

Back to Home
Source: The Guardian