Disney Magic Kingdom, not AI. Image Credit: Mike Voerler
6 class = “Hidden-Xs” class = “Hidden-Xs”> X.com reddit Bluesky
Two studios rarely on one side and Universal have long fought for the dominance of cash desks and visitors to the thematic park, but now they share a common goal.The lawsuit calls the Middlen “bottomless pit of plagiarism.” It describes the fact that the studios are described as a business model based on unauthorized use of secure material.
The studios are asking for a court prohibition in order to stop the alleged violation and damage for what they describe as calculated and ongoing improper use of intellectual property.
an example of obtaining a content protected by security protection,
Midjourney image generator turns printed tips into a high-quality visual output. This approach is widespread in the generative AI industry.
These systems are studied on massive data sets collected from the Internet without taking into account copyright. They learn to reproduce visual styles and recognizable characters.
According to Disney and Universal, the results are not only inspired by pop culture, but also very similar to copyright. The lawsuit indicates the generated AI images of iodine with a light chalk, a barter Simpson on a skateboard and an iron person in flight.
also includes characters from universal films, such as Shrek and Bleadless from how to train your dragon. Studios claim that these examples show that Midjourney used her content to teach her model without permission.
Disney and Universal say that they asked Midues to stop using their material protected by the copyright, or at least establish a guarantee to prevent further improper use. The company refused, they say and instead released new models that doubled the problem, creating even more detailed recreatments.
“Piracy is piracy,” said the highest legal director of Disney Gorasio Gutierres. “The fact that this is done by AI does not make it less violation.”
Kim Harris from Nbcuniversal expressed this more straightforward
“We are talking about protecting real artists whose work was built on these tools and companies that financed their creation,” Harris exclaimed.
MIDJORNEY: Scraping FIRST, WORRYING ABOUT RIGHTS LATER
Midjourney was founded in 2021 and quickly went up to fame, offering paid subscriptions for images generated AI. It was reported that the company received the estimated income of $ 300 million in 2024. When he was asked if they received permission from the artists, he admitted that they did not.
“In fact, there is no way to get a hundred millions of images and find out where they come from,” he said. Other AI companies said the same amount for governments around the world.
This quote can return to pursue it.
This is far from the first legal threat that Midjourney faced. A group of artists sued the company and others in 2023, arguing that AI firms saved and re -profiled their work without consent. This case is still making his way after the courts after the judge decided that the claims were believable.
Chairman RIAA & amp; The General Director Mitch Glayer also commented on the lawsuit.
“A means of partnerships is a clear path that is both further innovation of artificial intelligence and the development of human skill,” he said in a statement by Appleinsider. “This action Disney and Universal is a critical position for human creativity and responsible innovation.”
Now that two of the main entertainment companies in the United States join the battle with almost bottomless pockets for lawyers, the bets are higher. The lawsuit emphasizes the growing tension between artificial intelligence companies, which consider the law on copyright as an obstacle and the creators who expect payment when using their work.
an example of obtaining a copyright content,
American Association of the Sound Education (RIAA) is a trading organization that represents large musical labels and works to protect intellectual property rights artists and entries of companies.
The case is part of the growing wave of trials aimed at artificial art companies to teach their copyright models. The authors, musicians, news organizations and other rights owners raised similar problems, arguing that artificial intelligence tools based on unauthorized content are undermined by both copyright law and creative work.
on a smaller scale, we saw how our own content was looking for the consistency in the interests of the AI report. We saw our copy, literal, broken in the news or procedural steps that do not make sense in combination with other steps from other places.
while companies such as Midjourney describe the process as innovation, it is ultimately a label that avoids payment of people who have done their original work. And over time and AI, it feeds on the content generated by AI, the results become more dirty for the user and legally.
, whether the Middles consider the tracking license too complicated, the courts can soon decide whether this is a real excuse or simply convenient.
