Disney, NBCU Sue AI Image Generator Midjourney Over Copyright Infringement 83
Disney and NBCUniversal have filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against AI image generator firm Midjourney in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles, marking the first time major Hollywood studios have taken legal action against a generative AI company.
The entertainment giants accuse Midjourney, founded in 2021, of training its software on "countless" copyrighted works without permission and enabling users to create images that "blatantly incorporate and copy" famous characters including Darth Vader, the Minions, Frozen's Elsa, Shrek, and Homer Simpson.
The companies claim they attempted to resolve the matter privately, but Midjourney "continued to release new versions" with "even higher quality infringing images" according to the complaint. Disney's general counsel used the word "piracy," to describe Midjourney's practice, while NBCUniversal's general counsel characterized it as "blatant infringement."
The entertainment giants accuse Midjourney, founded in 2021, of training its software on "countless" copyrighted works without permission and enabling users to create images that "blatantly incorporate and copy" famous characters including Darth Vader, the Minions, Frozen's Elsa, Shrek, and Homer Simpson.
The companies claim they attempted to resolve the matter privately, but Midjourney "continued to release new versions" with "even higher quality infringing images" according to the complaint. Disney's general counsel used the word "piracy," to describe Midjourney's practice, while NBCUniversal's general counsel characterized it as "blatant infringement."
This Will Be Very Interesting (Score:4, Insightful)
This will be very interesting to watch. I hope that this will not be a years long process as the outcome will be a pivotal point for AI in general.
Re: (Score:3)
All you need to know is that there were former cases where Disney have been successful - Arne Anka by Charlie Christensen. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
The story of Arne vs. Disney is indeed interesting. I recommend this video for anyone who is not familiar about it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
I could write a summary about the story, but I think it is much more interesting if you watch the video with actual images related to the story.
Re: (Score:3)
The irresistible force (movie/recording studios) versus the immovable object (the US government's support for AI).
Finally, the studios seem to have met their match.
This can't end well for anyone.
Re: (Score:2)
My take is that is the end of the general generative AI hype. And not any moment too soon. That tech is expensive crap.
Why Midjourney? (Score:4, Interesting)
Why are they suing Midjourney and not Google or OpenAI? A bit weird.
Re:Why Midjourney? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Hahahahahaha, no. By revenue, Alphabet is not even 4x as large as Disney.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why Midjourney? (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't that always the strategy? Sue a weaker opponent first, and once you have got some precedent set in court, you can go after the bigger players that will now face a more uphill battle due to the precedent you set.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Why are they suing Midjourney and not Google or OpenAI? A bit weird.
As others mentioned, Google has vast resources for a case like this.
Their legal argument is shaky at best, possibly setting a terrible legal precedent. So, they're probably hoping to triumph over a weaker opponent first.
Re: (Score:2)
As others mentioned, Google has vast resources for a case like this.
And a history of winning [wikipedia.org] this sort of lawsuit. Rather decisively.
Their legal argument is shaky at best, possibly setting a terrible legal precedent. So, they're probably hoping to triumph over a weaker opponent first.
It depends, I think, on whether they concentrate on "they trained in on copyrighted material" or "it can be used to produce infringing material." The former would, in the end, be the most dangerous precedent to set, since all artists, everywhere, have been trained on copyrighted images belonging to someone else. The latter is a weak case, since there's plenty of precedent that tools that can be used to infringe are not illegal unless that is
Re:Why Midjourney? (Score:5, Interesting)
I think for one is that Midjourney, at least from my layman understanding, is primarily an image generation system whereas those other systems are more chat and general purpose. Also this line in the article stuck out:
Disney and NBCU claim that they tried to talk to Midjourney about the issue before taking legal action, but unlike other generative AI platforms that they say agreed to implement measures to stop the theft of their IP, Midjourney did not take the issue seriously.
So if Disney approached Google and OpenAI and they were/are conducive to making adjustments and working with Disney that goes a long way to avoiding legal action, from both ends, Disney can't as easily sue until things get to an impasse whereas with Midjourney if Disney is accurate here then they did their due diligence and can say to court "we tried to handle this outside the legal system" which goes a long way.
Re: (Score:2)
Because Midjourney has the best image generation at the moment, and their automatic filters are stupid and useless.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They _start_ with what gives them the easiest case. And Midjourney apparently does. Then they go after the others.
Re: (Score:2)
Why are they suing Midjourney and not Google or OpenAI? A bit weird.
Not really, they're going after the ones that cant afford expensive lawyers and a years long law suit in order to get a favourable judgement by just outspending their opposition. Then you have a precedent to force the big boys like Google to start paying "licensing fees" or risk a long drawn out law suit. Also they'll be going to law makers to say that everyone needs to start paying licensing fees due to AI.
This is the same industry that used to sue grandmas and when that worked, just sent them bills wit
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
How is Disney the good guy? Nothing is being stolen. All the images remain in place.
It's like when people steal videos, software, and movies. The original is still there.
Re:Good luck to them (Score:5, Insightful)
The GenAI companies love to compare their "training" models to a regular art student "training" their talent by looking at existing art.
The difference is that a human artist can't then turn around and take commissions to sell paintings of other people's IP, right? You can't just learn to draw Moana and then sell Moana TShits online - that's infringement. But Midjourney will take your money for access to their models and serve you up infringing images.
I don't think the "theft of IP" angle is quite as compelling as the "selling infringing material" side is. But the end result is the same.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You may be right, but it doesn't really matter at this stage of generative technology. There's apparently no way for these companies to put up guardrails that are both strict enough and competent enough to prevent infringement without also making them useless. They'd need to literally hire people to review every generated image to see if it meets the required test of "does this look enough like Moana (et al) to be infringing".
The only other option would be to completely retrain new models using only imagery
Re: (Score:3)
They'd need to literally hire people to review every generated image.
Inconvenience is not an excuse for ignoring the law. If I have a business idea and the only way I can implement it is by breaking the law, it means I can't do that thing. It doesn't mean I can just ignore the law that is stopping me from doing what I want.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly my point. The business model isn't sustainable in its current form in a legal way - hence them being sued over and over. It's about time.
Re: (Score:2)
The difference is that a human artist can't then turn around and take commissions to sell paintings of other people's IP, right? You can't just learn to draw Moana and then sell Moana TShits online - that's infringement. But Midjourney will take your money for access to their models and serve you up infringing images.
If I used a SaaS drawing program to create a spline resembling a Nike swoosh does this also constitute "take commissions to sell paintings of other people's IP" ? Why or why not?
Let's say Midjourney was not an online service but rather a purchased bag of weights in the form of a computer file. The only ongoing costs are computing resources necessary to render images. Is Midjourney taking commissions to sell paintings of other people's IP by providing the bag of weights? If you believe this is the case w
Re:Good luck to them (Score:4, Interesting)
If you use an SaaS tool that you pay for and then simply ask it to generate a spline that "looks like a nike swoosh" then it might be infringing, because the company would have to have programmed the tool to a) know what "nike swoosh" means, and b) to recreate something resembling it. If the tool had never seen the logo and hadn't been trained to associate it with a brand, then it wouldn't be able to generate what you asked for.
There's a huge difference between a blank canvas where you as an artist have to move a pointer around in a path that replicates an IP, and a tool where you simply type a few descriptive words and it creates the image for you.
If you want to take the analogy to a ludicrous degree, there are some "tools" that are deemed illegal or inappropriate for the public market because despite having "legitimate" uses, they make criminal activity too easy. Lockpicks and signal jammers are not allowed in many places, automatic weapons are banned almost everywhere, and color printers that can perfectly duplicate money, for example.
I'm not saying Midjourney is a "dangerous weapon" but in their current state it's a tool that can very easily facilitate infringing activities on a mass scale, so there's precedent to look at these issues from a legal standpoint.
Re: (Score:2)
If you use an SaaS tool that you pay for and then simply ask it to generate a spline that "looks like a nike swoosh" then it might be infringing, because the company would have to have programmed the tool to a) know what "nike swoosh" means, and b) to recreate something resembling it. If the tool had never seen the logo and hadn't been trained to associate it with a brand, then it wouldn't be able to generate what you asked for.
What makes prompts relevant with regards to your copyright argument? Is it really a specific lack of specific knowledge that differentiates image generators that infringe copyright from ones that don't?
What if I asked it to draw a spline that resembled a long check mark with rounded body and sharp points on both ends? What if I asked it to produce a thousand variations of check marks and selected one from a list that just happens to resemble the swoosh?
What about other forms of navigation of latent space?
Re: (Score:2)
All good questions that I'm sure will come up in the lawsuit.
The reason I said the question of specific infringement is "more compelling" is because I think the "theft" question is sort of abstract and might not get very far ultimately. Whereas any IP holder could potentially just go after genAI with a massive "infringement sting". Pay a subscription fee and start prompting in every way you can to get it to generate loads of infringing content, and then sue them for actual infringement.
If the AI companies w
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Good luck to them (Score:2)
"Why or why not?"
In your specific example here, what matters is first whether or not the result is sufficiently similar to infringe on Nike's trademark, and second whether there was intent.
Re: (Score:2)
"Why or why not?"
In your specific example here, what matters is first whether or not the result is sufficiently similar to infringe on Nike's trademark, and second whether there was intent.
My remarks are in the context of the image software/service vendors liability not the end users. I would agree with the notion end user is liable for their actions but the topic at hand is about the vendors liability.
Re: (Score:3)
> The difference is that a human artist can't then turn around and take commissions to sell paintings of other people's IP, right? You can't just learn to draw Moana and then sell Moana TShits online - that's infringement. But Midjourney will take your money for access to their models and serve you up infringing images.
There's a disconnect between those two periods. Yes, an art student can't just start selling Moana merch. However, I don't see where Midjourney is doing that. In fact, their ToC states tha
Re: (Score:2)
What if I'm an artist any someone commissions me to draw something that looks lik
Re: (Score:2)
But Midjourney will take your money for access to their models and serve you up infringing images.
Generating an image is not the same as infringement. It's what you do with the image. Midjourney has no creative direction or mind of its own. It is a tool that is used based on human input. It's not going to accidentally start copying Disney on its own accord, it relies on a human to do that. The human is the one who ultimately is liable for copyright infringement.
And if you think about this, the one precedence we've set so far is that AI images aren't copyrightable. If they aren't copyrightable, how can t
Re: (Score:2)
And if you think about this, the one precedence we've set so far is that AI images aren't copyrightable. If they aren't copyrightable, how can they be infringing on other works? That would be legally inconsistent.
The issue of whether or not a work is a derivative of a copyrighted work is a completely separate legal issue from whether or not a work is eligible for copyright.
Copyrighted works explicitly require a human to labor in a substantial way to a works creation. Violating copyright requires no such effort.
Re: (Score:2)
The work eligibility in general is true, but the reasoning behind why the work wasn't eligible for copyright is the key to my point. The judges ruled that the works are not copyright as computers are incapable of setting creative direction themselves, this was part of the ruling that pointed as to why only humans are eligible for copyright.
It legally follows that if something is incapable of setting creative direction then something can't be considered to be the infringing party in a copyright dispute.
Violating copyright requires no such effort.
False
Re: (Score:2)
Copyright infringement does not equal theft, that works for both ends of the argument, while a downloader can make your claim it also defeats using that idea to defend against infringement, the original being in place doesn't really answer the claim Disney is making which is training on copyrighted material with the purpose of generating new images based on that copyrighted imagery.
I have no idea if that holds up legally but I think there is enough here to where this actually get's in front of a judge, this
Re: (Score:2)
Soo, the existence of copyright is not known to you? Figures. Delusional AI moron.
Re: (Score:2)
Disney is and remains utterly evil. But sometimes (rarely) some goal of an utterly evil entoty can overlap with the common good. For a time.
A human (Score:3)
can watch a video and recreate it (minus IP infringement) why can't a machine do the same?
Re: (Score:3)
minus IP infringement
The fact that it isn't "minus" IP infringement is the whole (alleged) point.
The entertainment giants accuse Midjourney, founded in 2021, of training its software on "countless" copyrighted works without permission and enabling users to create images that "blatantly incorporate and copy" famous characters including Darth Vader, the Minions, Frozen's Elsa, Shrek, and Homer Simpson.
Re: A human (Score:3)
Right, but they're suing over copyright infringement, not trademark infringement. They're using only using the trademark infringement to prove that the copyrighted works were encoded/copied into the training data.
If they wanted to sue over trademark infringement they would have a much better chance of winning but it wouldn't accomplish what they are trying to accomplish.
Re: A human (Score:2)
"Right, but they're suing over copyright infringement, not trademark infringement. They're using only using the trademark infringement to prove that the copyrighted works were encoded/copied into the training data."
If your description is accurate then in fact they do need to show the trademark infringement because it is part of their argument.
Re: A human (Score:2)
Yes, they do. But to say that this is about individual trademark infringements would mean that there are non-infringing uses.
Proving that it can infringe trademarks is trivial - it is a black box but everyone has access to the output side of it. They probably already have timestamped generated images and the prompts that created them. And really, nearly the whole public is pretty much aware that this is possible.
Re: (Score:2)
You bolded too much text, the /b tag should have come after this bit:
enabling users to create
That's the key point that people miss. The users need to do the creating. Midjourney has no mind of its own. The user is the one committing copyright infringement. Or what next? Is Staedtler going to get sued for manufacturing a paintbrush?
Re: (Score:2)
Because a machine is not a human. This is a special legal exception given to humans. Machines do not qualify. Machines have no rights.
Are you realy too dumb or too deep in delusion to see that?
Re: (Score:2)
Because a machine is not a human. This is a special legal exception given to humans. Machines do not qualify. Machines have no rights.
You've made this claim repeatedly yet when asked you've been unable to objectively support it with credible objective evidence.
Are you realy too dumb or too deep in delusion to see that?
Hmm derisive commentary or citing relevant legal text or legal decisions that support your position. One of these options are constructive while the other is not.
Re: (Score:2)
Because a machine is not a human. This is a special legal exception given to humans. Machines do not qualify. Machines have no rights.
You've made this claim repeatedly yet when asked you've been unable to objectively support it with credible objective evidence.
I have provided evidence. You are just too deranged to be able to understand it. Got try your view on a judge and see it fail.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you get enjoyment from insulting people? You know nothing about my state and why I wrote that question, whether I am in delusion or if I was just bringing up a question. Insults are not a good way to have a discussion, grow up.
Recent copyright office ruling might be relevant (Score:3)
The US copyright office's recent report concludes that while some generative AI probably does constitute a "transformative" use, the mass scraping of all data for commercial use probably does not qualify as fair use.
"The extent to which they are fair, however, will depend on what works were used, from what source, for what purpose, and with what controls on the outputs — all of which can affect the market," the report states.
"Making commercial use of vast troves of copyrighted works to produce expressive content that competes with them in existing markets, especially where this is accomplished through illegal access, goes beyond established fair use boundaries."
Re: (Score:3)
That's frankly ridiculous, copyright never gave control over who was allowed to read and analyze a book, only who prints it.
Re: (Score:3)
True, but it gives control of what others do with the material after they read it. For example, if I memorize a copyrighted short story or news article, then I type it into my computer with a couple words changed, post it online, and sell ads against it, that's not "fair use" is it?
This is basically what newspapers and authors have proven genAI can do - using prompts to basically recreate book passages and article almost verbatim.
It's the same thing - monetization of other peoples' works without permission.
Re: (Score:1)
Machies neither "read" nor "analyze". That is reserved for sentient beings. Yes, I get you are too dumb to understand that. But copyright judges generally are not.
Re: (Score:2)
Machies neither "read" nor "analyze".
Neither do you apparently. I never mentioned machines at all, and they're irrelevant to the point I was making.
Re: (Score:1)
Oh, I can. What I see on your side is deep dysfunctionality, though.
Copyright (Score:3, Insightful)
Move all ingest processing to the UAE (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It is true that Disney is very offensive towards artists. Here is a video about the story of Don Rosa and what Disney did to him. Don Rosa was one of the best artists that has made Disney cartoons, but Disney pretty much forced him to quit that. It is a rather sad story, but I recommend it for anyone who thinks that Disney is a good guy. I don't think that Disney is especially evil, I think that many companies abuse their artists, but as I am personally a fan of Don Rosa, this was especially sad thing for m
Precedent (Score:2)
While it would be great if a judge could rule in Disney's/NBCU's favour, it will never get that far - a settlement will be reached long before that.
None of the AI mega-corps wants to establish a precedent that empowers the "little guy/gal" creators to sue based on it.
Midjourney lawsuit - both necessary and inevitable (Score:2)
It was only a matter of time. With Disney and NBCUniversal now suing Midjourney for training on their IP and outputting near-replicas of characters like Aladdin and the Minions, we’ve officially entered the next phase of the AI copyright wars. This isn't a fan-fiction dispute or a YouTube takedown. This is major-league litigation—backed by companies who understand copyright law better than anyone because they’ve weaponized it for decades.
And you know what? On this point, I’m with the
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, let's assume this idea. Who should pay?
- model developers? they are a cost center
- model hosts? they make cents a million tokens, serving AI is commoditized, there is little profit in it
- users who generate their own ideas? how can you tax Mary's enjoyment of AI abstract art, or Jonny's passion for anime girls?
Re: (Score:1)
Oh no! Your shitty attempt to muddle the definition of the relevant list of participants has completely derailed the moral compass of the entire discussion! I guess now we'll all have to just let this rampant automated theft and plagiarism continue unabated! Oh well! /sarcasm
Midjourney, the ones being sued currently, are clearly the ones who should pay, and you're a shitty person for even making this argument.
Re: (Score:2)
And you know what? On this point, I’m with them.
Before the current AI hype, I would never have said that, but I am too. The assholes begind generic generative tech are getting rich by stealing from everybody. That is not acceptable.
Do they have a legal leg to stand on? (Score:2)
After all, we already know that music sampling isn't infringement and you can't copyright look & feel.
Re: (Score:2)
You can very much copyright a style or a design or a fictional character.
As long as they don't replicate... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
All you are saying here is that you have no clue how the law works. Good luck with that!
Sigh (Score:2)
Disney got involved? Nice! (Score:2)
That is my personal marker for the end of the current AI hype. Disney will kill the AI fuckers that stole everythign they got their hands on.
so? (Score:2)
I just asked Bing Image Creator to portray a pickleball match with darth vader and elsa vs mickey mouse and shrek, and it did. Although it had darth vader's head on elsa's body, and a volleyball, and they were playing at night, with court lines on the sky, and mickey mouse had a curvy figure, and so forth.