Outdated Drivers Are Slowing You Down
One free scan finds every outdated or missing driver and matches the right update for your exact hardware.Free scan · exact hardware matchWindows Errors? Fix Them Before They Spread
Repair common Windows errors and clear accumulated junk for a smoother, more stable PC - no reinstall needed.Free scan · no reinstallSome links on this page are affiliate links: if you buy through them we may earn a commission, at no extra cost to you.
Yes—Disney, Universal and affiliated companies sued Midjourney on June 11, 2025. The federal lawsuit alleges that Midjourney used copyrighted works in developing its image-generation service and enabled users to create images featuring recognizable studio characters. Midjourney denies infringement, and the case had not produced a verified final judgment, settlement or dismissal in the publicly visible record reviewed through August 18, 2026.
What happened?
The case, Disney Enterprises Inc. et al. v. Midjourney Inc., No. 2:25-cv-05275, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The complaint asserts copyright-infringement claims under the Copyright Act, including direct and secondary-infringement theories. The approximately 110-page filing includes exhibits showing examples that the plaintiffs characterize as unauthorized reproductions or adaptations of studio properties.
| # | Preview | Product | Price | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
|
TOY STORY 4-MOVIE COLLECTION | $27.96 | Buy on Amazon |
| 2 |
|
WALT DISNEY CLASSICS ANIMATION COLLECTION: 24 DISNEY GREATEST | $68.99 | Buy on Amazon |
| 3 |
|
FINDING NEMO/FINDING DORY 2-MOVIE COLLECTION | $12.96 | Buy on Amazon |
| 4 |
|
CARS 3-MOVIE COLLECTION | $19.96 | Buy on Amazon |
| 5 |
![DreamWorks 10-Movie Adventure Collection [DVD]](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/51fTUaDeW2L._SL160_.jpg)
|
DreamWorks 10-Movie Adventure Collection [DVD] | $22.99 | Buy on Amazon |
This was described at the time as the first major copyright action by Hollywood studios against a generative-AI company. That description refers to the significance of the filing, not a finding that Midjourney infringed copyright.
Read the complaint and review the public docket.
Who sued Midjourney?
“Disney and Universal” is shorthand for a larger group of corporate plaintiffs:
#1 Best Overall
- Disney Enterprises Inc.
- Marvel Characters Inc.
- Lucasfilm Ltd. LLC
- Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation
- Universal City Studios Productions LLLP
- DreamWorks Animation L.L.C.
The complaint groups the Disney-affiliated entities as “Disney” and the Universal-affiliated entities as “Universal.” Disney and Comcast are identified as corporate parents.
What do the studios allege?
The plaintiffs allege that Midjourney:
- copied or used copyrighted works without authorization while developing or training its image-generation service;
- enabled users to generate images incorporating recognizable studio characters and other protected expressive elements;
- continued operating after receiving notice of the studios’ concerns; and
- commercially benefited from allegedly unauthorized copies and user-generated outputs.
The complaint advances both direct-infringement claims and secondary-liability theories. Those theories concern Midjourney’s alleged role in enabling, benefiting from or failing to control users’ allegedly infringing activity. The allegations remain disputed and must be proved through the litigation.
Which characters and franchises appear in the complaint?
The complaint’s exhibits reportedly include examples involving properties associated with Star Wars, Marvel, Disney animation, The Simpsons, Universal and DreamWorks. Contemporary reporting identified examples involving Darth Vader, Marvel characters, Homer Simpson, Minions and characters from Despicable Me.
The Tool Desk
Outbyte PC Repair FREEClear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Outbyte Driver Updater FREEFix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →The presence of an image in a complaint exhibit does not itself establish infringement. A court would need to consider the particular copyrighted work, the protected expression, the similarity between the works, authorization, context and any applicable defenses. Nor does the lawsuit mean that every image depicting a famous character is automatically unlawful.
The case is about more than one generated image
This is not simply a dispute over a single user’s fan-art picture. The studios challenge the broader operation of Midjourney’s commercial service, including alleged training-data conduct, the system’s ability to generate recognizable characters, and the company’s alleged failure to implement adequate safeguards.
That broader challenge could make the case more consequential than a conventional claim involving one copied image. It also creates several distinct legal questions that should not be collapsed into the slogan that AI “stole” copyrighted art.
The main legal questions
1. Does training on copyrighted works infringe copyright?
The case may examine whether and under what circumstances copying copyrighted works to train a generative model is infringement, fair use, or both depending on the facts.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitches2Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errors3Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteImportant factual disputes may include what data Midjourney used, how the data was acquired, whether particular works were included, what technical copies were made, and whether the system retains or reproduces protected expression. Copyright does not automatically prohibit a system from learning abstract ideas, visual concepts, artistic techniques or a general style. The analysis instead turns on the protected expression and the facts relevant to fair use, including purpose, market effects and the nature and extent of copying.
Rank #3
- FINDING NEMO/FINDING DORY 2 MOVIE COLLECTION [Region Free]
- Product type: PHYSICAL MOVIE
- Brand: DISNEY
2. Are particular outputs substantially similar?
A separate issue is whether an individual generated image reproduces protected elements of a copyrighted work closely enough to constitute infringement. A recognizable character, franchise reference or broad visual resemblance is not automatically a legal conclusion.
The court may need to examine the specific output, the underlying copyrighted work, the similarities that are legally protected, the prompt and generation process, and how the output was used or distributed.
3. Can Midjourney be liable for users’ conduct?
The plaintiffs’ secondary-liability theories may require evidence about Midjourney’s knowledge, contribution, control, financial benefit and conduct surrounding user-generated outputs. A platform is not automatically liable merely because its tool can be used unlawfully.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
Midjourney’s terms may place intellectual-property obligations on users, but contractual user obligations do not automatically resolve third-party claims against the provider.
Rank #4
4. Could the court order changes to the service?
The studios seek injunctive and monetary remedies, according to the complaint. Depending on the motions and evidence, the litigation could raise questions about filtering, technical safeguards, licensing or other changes to the service.
An injunction, if requested or granted, would involve a separate legal standard and would not by itself be a final finding that Midjourney infringed copyright.
How has Midjourney responded?
Midjourney filed an answer with a jury demand on August 6, 2025, so the case was not resolved by the initial pleadings. Midjourney has denied the infringement allegations.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Later reporting described Midjourney’s position as including the argument that its model learned visual concepts and their relationship to language from billions of publicly available images. The company has characterized that process as transformative fair use and has argued that users bear responsibility for complying with intellectual-property law under its terms.
Best Value
“Publicly available” does not mean “copyright-free.” An image being accessible online and an image being available for unrestricted commercial copying are different questions. Midjourney’s answer and later court filings, rather than press summaries, control the company’s complete legal position.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.Has Midjourney been found liable?
Not on the evidence in the reviewed public record. As of August 18, 2026, no reliable source in the dossier established a final judgment, trial verdict, settlement or dismissal in the Disney-Universal case.
The public docket showed active litigation, including discovery and case-management activity. The case was assigned to Judge John A. Kronstadt, with Magistrate Judge A. Joel Richlin. A docket tracker listed a further informal discovery conference for June 15, 2026.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
The procedural record can change. Readers seeking the latest status should check the Central District of California’s ECF system or PACER, including for amended pleadings, dispositive motions, injunction rulings, discovery orders, settlement notices, trial dates or judgment.
How a separate Midjourney case fits in
In a separate 2024 lawsuit brought by visual artists against Midjourney, Stability AI and other defendants, a Northern District of California judge allowed copyright claims against Midjourney to proceed past the motion-to-dismiss stage. That ruling meant the pleaded claims were plausible enough to continue. It did not establish liability after discovery or trial, and it did not decide the Disney-Universal lawsuit.
Why the lawsuit matters
- Training-data liability: Commercial AI developers may face greater pressure to explain what material they copy and whether they have licenses or a fair-use defense.
- Output similarity: Courts may have to distinguish protected character expression from unprotected ideas, concepts and general styles.
- Platform responsibility: User terms alone may not settle questions about a provider’s own conduct, knowledge, control or financial benefit.
- Technical safeguards: Litigation could affect expectations around prompt blocking, output filtering and systems designed to reduce recognizable copyrighted reproductions.
- Commercial risk: Advertisers, filmmakers, agencies and businesses using generated images may face added risk when outputs contain recognizable franchise characters or protected artwork.
- Industry leverage: Major rights holders may use lawsuits such as this one to influence licensing negotiations and the development of commercial AI products.
What the lawsuit does not establish
- It does not establish that all AI training is illegal.
- It does not establish that all character fan art is infringing.
- It does not mean Midjourney has already lost.
- It does not mean a court has ordered Midjourney to shut down.
- It does not concern style imitation alone.
- It does not establish that every character shown in a generated image is the subject of a separately proven infringement claim.
The dispute is best understood as a test of several connected but separate issues: training-data copying, model behavior, individual outputs, platform conduct and fair use. The outcome will depend on technical evidence, the specific copyrighted works, the similarity of challenged outputs and Midjourney’s conduct—not simply on whether an image looks familiar.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
Recommended Free Tools
