Warner Bros. Sues Midjourney: A Dispute Over Copyrights for Batman, Superman, and other characters

Warner Bros. Discovery (WBD) has filed a lawsuit against the creators of the AI image and video generator Midjourney, accusing the company of unlawfully using characters and worlds owned by the studio—ranging from Batman, Superman, and Wonder Woman to Bugs Bunny and Scooby-Doo. According to the complaint filed in a federal court in Los Angeles (case Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc et al v. Midjourney Inc, No. 25-08376), the infringements were allegedly used to train the models and allow subscribers to generate “high-quality, downloadable” images of the heroes in any scene, without the consent of the copyright holder.

Key Allegations by the Studio

WBD describes Midjourney’s operating model as a “calculated and profit-driven” decision to lack real safeguards for copyright holders. The lawsuit claims that the company had previously blocked the creation of video materials based on numerous infringing images, only to allegedly lift these restrictions in August, promoting the change as an “enhancement.” According to the studio, the platform’s mechanics lead to the creation of materials that can be strikingly similar to original shots and character designs, threatening to blur the line between licensed works and unauthorized “doppelgangers.”

The lawsuit demands damages (including the profits Midjourney has gained from such actions) as well as an injunction to stop further infringements. In separate statements, WBD representatives emphasize that at the core of the studio’s operations is the creation and protection of stories and heroes—assets into which they invest both money and the reputation of their creative partners. The case is of precedent-setting significance for Hollywood: the outcome could set the boundaries for how far generative tools can use others' intellectual property during training and in the final output.

Midjourney’s Stance and the “Fair Use” Dispute

In other ongoing cases, Midjourney argues that copyright law does not give absolute control over every use of protected materials and that training models on publicly available images constitutes fair use, which supports the free flow of ideas and information. The company also asserts that responsibility for violations lies with users, with the platform functioning similarly to a search engine: it enables content creation but formally forbids infringements in its terms of service. These defenses—already tested in other lawsuits—will now be scrutinized in another high-profile case involving WBD.

Warner Bros.'s case is not isolated. In June of this year, Disney and Universal (NBCUniversal) filed their own lawsuit against Midjourney, accusing the company of mass infringements involving characters like Darth Vader, Bart Simpson, Shrek, and Ariel from The Little Mermaid. This is part of a broader offensive by rights holders—ranging from newspaper and music publishers to film studios—who claim that some AI companies have been using their collections without licenses. This narrative also includes a growing number of class-action lawsuits from authors and media outlets against other model providers.

At the heart of the dispute is the question of whether models can train on copyrighted images without licenses, and whether the results—whether images or videos—are transformative enough not to infringe on the copyright holder’s interests. If the court sides with Warner Bros., platforms may be forced to introduce stricter filters, license large content libraries, or significantly limit the ability to generate well-known characters. If Midjourney prevails, the status quo regarding fair use will remain, which could make it easier for AI tool developers to expand services but may push studios to explore alternative forms of protection (e.g., trademarks, character rights, content-marking systems).

The Scale and Numbers Behind Midjourney

Documents and public data cited in the disputes indicate that Midjourney—launched in 2022—had built a user base of nearly 21 million by the end of 2024, with estimated annual revenues of around $300 million. This scale—combined with the culture of memes and viral images—means that any IP dispute quickly becomes systemic, affecting not only studios and tech companies but also creators, animators, graphic designers, and millions of users who use the tool in their daily work.