Copyright litigation continued with Midjourney and Disney, Globe Film and Warner Brothers. The current focus has shifted from abuse to disclosure at the evidence exchange stage, in particular with regard to the extent to which Hollywood filmmakers are required to submit to the courts information on the use of generated AI.
Controversy turned to evidence.
Midjourney asked three filmmakers to disclose more internal documents about how they used AI to generate images and videos. Previously, Disney and Globe had indicted Midjourney last year, claiming that their models produced the image of the copyrighted role of Bart Simpson and Darth Vidal, and subsequently the Warner brothers had filed a suit.
Midjourney argued that the use of a training model for copyright-protected images was reasonable. This position also served as an important background for the parties ' follow-up to the evidentiary dispute.
The judge limited the disclosure.
According to the Court ' s previous decision, the party was required to provide information related to the use of the generated AI, but only to the final consumer-oriented video and image works. Midjourney now wishes to expand this scope by requiring more internal use.
According to the company, the non-submission of documents currently submitted by the party may indicate that they are operating in private in a manner similar to that of the prosecution. Midjourney, for example, may reflect common practices within the industry if the film-producing model is being developed for internal use only for spectroscopy design or visual creative thinking.
Require disclosure of hints and output results
In addition to its own AI project, Midjourney required the other party to submit all of its tips and results on the Midjourney platform, not just the individual ones accused of creating tort images.
David Singer, the lead lawyer for the film, used to call this a "smoke evidence." He stated that the film was not intended to block the development of AI, nor was it intended to shut down the Midjourney business, but rather to stop the unauthorized reproduction of film and television content and to continue to disseminate derivatives that included the image of prominent players.
The point of view of this case is extending from copyright attribution to the way video companies themselves use generated AI. Whether the relevant internal practice will influence the court ' s judgement as to the practice of the profession and the reasonable use of defences is an important part of the subsequent proceedings.