Disney and Universal demand Midjourney for violation of copyright with AI

Companies claim that Midjourney He incurs crimes, since he uses images protected by authorship to train his AI model.

***

• Hollywood giants accuse the image generator Midjourney to hack your works.
• They claim that AI was trained with intellectual property without permission.
• They look for up to USD $ 20,000,000 in compensation for infringed works.

Disney and Universal, Renowned companies in the entertainment sector have initiated a federal demand in California against the artificial intelligence company Midjourney, This under the allegation of massive infractions for authorship through the generation of images.

Images generated with characters under authorship

According to several published reports, this lawsuit filed by Disney and Universal against Midjourney represents the first major legal confrontation between renowned film studies and a image generation platform by Ia.

As such, Midjourney It allows users to generate hyperrealist images from written indications. The tool has become one of the most popular of its kind, accumulating more than 21 million subscribers and generating income of USD $ 300,000,000 during the last year, according to data presented by demanding studies.

Disney and Universal accuse the company of Train their models with images of their protected characters, which would allow any user to generate content with iconic figures such as Bart Simpson, Ariel, Wall-E or the minions. In demand, they qualify Midjourney Like one “Virtual vending machine” and a “plagiarismless well.”

The studies argue that these practices constitute a direct violation of their copyright and They request compensation of up to USD $ 150,000 for each infringed work, with a list that includes more than 150 elements, which could translate into more than USD $ 20 million in damages.

Background of friction between creators and technologies of AI

This case adds to a growing tension between creators of content and artificial intelligence companies. Throughout the last years, artists, writers, musicians and performers They have expressed concern about the unauthorized use of their works in training models of generative AI. The central fear is that these tools can end up replacing them in the creative process.

In 2023, Midjourney It was sued by a group of visual artists in a separate case that still continues in a phase of proposition of evidence. On that occasion, the company argued that each image generated by AI represents only one “Infinitesimal fraction” of the data with which she was trained, similar to the way in which a human artist is inspired by what she has seen or read throughout her life.

As to Disney and Universal, These claim to have previously requested that Midjourney It would stop the generation of content that violates its intellectual property or, failing that, to implement technology to prevent such actions. According to the demand, those requests were “Ignorated.”

However, studies indicate that the company does have filters to prevent inappropriate content, such as violence or nudity, demonstrating that the implementation of technical limitations is possible. In addition, they point out that other AI companies have already adopted mechanisms to protect copyright.

In the words of Horacio Gutiérrez, senior executive vice president and legal director of Disney, “The piracy is piracy, and the fact that it is carried out by an AI company does not make it less offender”. He also added that while the company believes in the potential of artificial intelligence as a creative tool, its use must be ethical and legal.

What is at stake for the entertainment industry and AI

This case could not only redefine the relationship between Hollywood and new technologies, but also sitting a legal precedent on the limits of the use of protected content to train AI models. If the courts fail in favor of Disney and Universal, Other companies could follow the same path.

For now, Midjourney He has not issued official comments regarding this new demand. Its position throughout other events has been that its creative processes do not constitute direct plagiarism, but an algorithmic reconfiguration inspired by vast amounts of data, similar to the functioning of the human brain.

The judicial battle begins, but its result could mark the beginning of a new era of regulation on artificial intelligence and its relationship with intellectual property.

Article written by a content editor. Edited by Angel Di Matteo / Diariobitcoin

Original image of Diariobitcoin, created with artificial intelligence, for free use, licensed under public domain

WARNING: Diariobitcoin offers informative and educational content on various topics, including cryptocurrencies, AI, technology and regulations. We do not provide financial advice. Cryptactive investments are high risk and may not be adequate for all. Investigate, consult an expert and verify the applicable legislation before investing. I could lose all its capital.

Subscribe to our newsletter