Warner Bros. escalates its lawsuit against Midjourney.

Warner Bros. has stepped up its lawsuit against Midjourney, focusing on the company's recent decision to remove video safeguards. The studio is seeking the most serious possible damages, which could total billions. If you type "classic superhero battle" into Midjourney's latest video tool, you might see a character that closely resembles Superman, complete with a cape and chest emblem. Warner Bros. Discovery's new legal filing says this is intentional. The studio claims Midjourney deliberately removed safeguards that used to prevent its AI from creating videos featuring copyrighted characters, and then promoted this change as an "improvement" that would lead to fewer blocked jobs. This case is more than a typical copyright dispute in the world of AI. Warner Bros. Discovery describes Midjourney's actions as "systematic" and "willful," which are legal terms that could entitle it to $150,000 in damages for each violation. The studio seems to be testing whether courts will see AI companies' design decisions as intentionally helping piracy. The complaint, filed on January 8 in California federal court, is a major step up from the studio's first lawsuit in September and follows similar moves by Disney and Universal. "Midjourney has made a calculated and profit-driven decision to offer zero protection for copyright owners even though Midjourney knows about the breathtaking scope of its piracy and copyright infringement," the complaint states, using language that legal analysts say is carefully crafted to meet the high bar for willful infringement claims. The timing seems intentional. The filing says that when Midjourney first launched its video features in December, it would not create videos using Warner Bros. properties. However, within a few weeks, the company reportedly removed these protections. Engadget reports that this technical change happened in late December or early January. "The WBD complaint appears to more fully emphasize that Midjourney is secondarily liable for infringement via contributory, inducement, and/or vicarious liability by inducing its users to directly infringe," notes Eileen McDermott, Editor-in-Chief at IPWatchdog. This strategy shifts the focus from whether AI training on copyrighted works constitutes fair use to whether Midjourney actively enables users to create infringing content. The evidence Warner Bros. presents is specific and testable. Submit a prompt for Superman in a particular setting, the complaint alleges, and "Midjourney generates and displays a high-quality, downloadable image featuring Warner Bros. Discovery's copyrighted Superman character." The studio claims this happens even with generic prompts that don't explicitly name protected characters. Warner Bros. Discovery wants either the profits Midjourney made from the alleged infringement or $150,000 for each violation. With the studio's large number of characters and properties, this amount could add up quickly. For context, Midjourney had 21 million users as of September 2024, and each user could create several infringing outputs every day. "The heart of what we do is develop stories and characters to entertain our audiences," a Warner Bros. Discovery spokesperson said in a statement. "Midjourney is blatantly and purposefully infringing copyrighted works." Midjourney has not yet responded directly to these new claims. In earlier filings for the Disney and Universal lawsuit, the company said, "Copyright law does not confer absolute control over the use of copyrighted works... The limited monopoly granted by copyright must give way to fair use." However, taking away the video safeguards could make this defense harder to support. This case comes at a time when AI video generation is becoming more advanced and easier to use. Competitors such as OpenAI's Sora keep stricter content filters, while new companies like MiniMax's Hailuo AI, which is marketed as a "Hollywood Studio in Your Pocket," are also facing legal challenges from the same studios. "This case could set a precedent that defines how intellectual property, from fictional characters to real human faces, is treated in the age of AI," says Biljana Cveijetinovic, an attorney who studies legal tech issues. There is a bigger trend in how media companies handle AI infringement. Instead of only arguing about training data, studios are now focusing on product choices that seem to make infringement easier. This approach is similar to earlier cases involving peer-to-peer file sharing, in which courts found companies responsible for designing systems that encouraged piracy, even if they did not host the infringing content themselves. It is still unclear whether Midjourney will restore its video safeguards or continue to rely on its fair use defense. TechCrunch reports that the company released its v7 model on April 3, 2025, and made it the default on June 17, 2025. The court's decision on the "willful" infringement claim continues to shape whether AI companies will be seen as partners or obstacles by copyright holders. Source notes: Willful infringement claims and $150,000 damages figure → src_ipwatchdog_complaint, src_broadcast_sues Removal of video guardrails → src_ipwatchdog_complaint, src_engadget_video Superman prompt example → src_ipwatchdog_complaint 21 million users statistic → src_engadget_video Expert quotes (McDermott, Cveijetinovic) → src_ipwatchdog_complaint Warner Bros. Discovery statement → src_broadcast_sues Timeline of events → src_ipwatchdog_complaint, src_broadcast_sues, src_engadget_video • • • • • • •