Disney and Universal slam AI firm Midjourney as ‘bottomless pit of plagiarism' in lawsuit
LOS ANGELES, June 12 — Entertainment giants Disney and Universal filed a copyright infringement lawsuit yesterday against AI company Midjourney, calling the image generator a 'bottomless pit of plagiarism.'
The lawsuit is the first major legal battle between Hollywood studios and an AI firm, and follows other suits by independent artists who have sued Midjourney and other generative artificial intelligence makers for using their creative work.
The entertainment giants accused San Francisco-based Midjourney of pirating their libraries and making 'innumerable' copies of beloved characters including Darth Vader from Star Wars, Elsa from Frozen, and the Minions from Despicable Me without permission.
The suit, filed in federal district court in Los Angeles, alleges Midjourney used the studios' works to train its image service and generate high-quality reproductions featuring the companies' iconic characters.
'By helping itself to Plaintiffs' copyrighted works, and then distributing images (and soon videos) that blatantly incorporate and copy Disney's and Universal's famous characters — without investing a penny in their creation — Midjourney is the quintessential copyright free-rider and a bottomless pit of plagiarism,' the lawsuit states.
The studios said they approached Midjourney about their copyright concerns before filing the suit, requesting the company implement measures to prevent infringement that other AI companies have adopted.
But Midjourney 'ignored' their concerns and is 'strictly focused on its own bottom line,' according to the filing.
Instead of stopping its infringement, the studios argued, Midjourney continued to release new and better versions of its AI image service.
The complaint noted the company generated US$300 million (RM1.27 billion) in revenue last year through paid subscriptions.
The lawsuit provides ample visual evidence of alleged infringement, showing AI-generated images of characters including Yoda wielding a lightsaber, Bart Simpson riding a skateboard, Disney's Groot from Guardians of the Galaxy, and Universal's Shrek.
Disney and Universal are seeking unspecified monetary damages and a preliminary injunction to prevent Midjourney from copying their works or offering its services without copyright protections.
Last year a California federal judge found that artists behind a copyright infringement suit against Midjourney, Stability AI and other companies had plausibly argued these AI companies had copied and stored their work on company servers, allowing the litigation to continue. — AFP
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Malay Mail
7 hours ago
- Malay Mail
From AI parodies to environmental disasters, ‘The Simpsons' keeps evolving — just don't expect political jokes
ANNECY, June 14 — Like many American families struggling for unity in the polarised United States, The Simpsons have decided to avoid political jokes, the creator of the series Matt Groening told AFP. Despite the potential for storylines and humour, Groening ruled out venturing into America's toxic politics for laughs. 'We don't do political humour because political humour is very limited. It dates very quickly,' he said during an interview at the Annecy International Animation Film Festival in the French Alps. A Simpsons season takes at least six to nine months to produce, raising the risk of gags turning stale, Groening explained. The show — broadcast on US network Fox TV and on Disney Plus, which now owns the series — has sometimes appeared to predict real events, such as Donald Trump's election, which was first referenced in an episode in 2000. It has also featured parodies in the past of a host of politicians from Bill Clinton to Barack Obama, George W. Bush and Arnold Schwarzenegger. 'We just have to stay true to our characters, their spirit and their relationships. And when they face the sadness of the world, people feel briefly connected to them,' writer-producer Matt Selman told AFP. Despite Homer, Marge, Bart, Lisa and Maggie remaining frozen in time since their debut in 1989, the writers have ensured the story lines move with the times. A recent episode parodied artificial intelligence when a chatbot was asked to write the finale. 'In the plot of that episode, AI was given the job of writing the perfect finale. And of course, it just regurgitated and spat out all the other finales from all the other shows in very unoriginal and silly ways that of course would be terrible,' said Selman. 'It was our attempt to push back at AI, push back at ever ending the show.' The natural environment remains a rich source of inspiration, including in The Simpsons Movie in 2007 which featured a disaster caused by Homer that leads to Springfield being sealed under a giant dome. 'The environment's not going to get cleaned up anytime soon,' Groening added. The Simpsons Movie grossed US$536.4 million worldwide, but the creators ruled out making a sequel — for the moment. (Left to right): Cartoonist and creator of the TV series 'The Simpsons' Matt Groening, screenwriter Matt Selman and producer and director David Silverman pose during a photo session on the sidelines of the 49th Annecy International Film Festival in Annecy on June 11, 2025. — AFP pic 'We are still recovering from the first movie,' joked Groening. 'And the sad truth is we don't have enough time to do both the show and the movie unless we decide we want to work really, really hard.' The Simpsons has been translated into 26 languages and broadcast in around 100 countries. The 800th episode is set to air in early 2026. — AFP
The Star
8 hours ago
- The Star
Science shows you're probably bad at spotting AI images. These tricks can help
Is that celebrity really endorsing that product or is the ad an AI scam? Should you reconsider your vote based on that politician's photograph or is the image just AI-generated propaganda? Is your jealousy of that influencer's home or vacation because of their flawless taste or facility with AI image manipulation? As AI becomes a bigger part of our lives, the ability to spot AI images – and answer questions like these – is becoming more and more important. Unfortunately, the latest science suggests it's one skill that most of us are still pretty terrible at. Helpfully, though, science also offers a few tricks that can greatly improve your ability to tell AI fabrications from real-life images. How good are people at spotting AI images? Matthew Groh, a management professor at Northwestern University's Kellogg School of Management, has been studying deepfakes for years. But like the rest of us, he's seen how AI has supercharged the problem by vastly improving both the quality and quantity of fakes out there. Just how big of a problem is this, he wanted to know. Are everyday people usually able to tell fact from robot-created fiction? To find out, he and a team of collaborators designed a massive study, recruiting about 50,000 volunteers and testing their ability to discern AI-generated images from real ones. How did his volunteers do? The good news is they were more accurate than just flipping a coin. The bad news is not by that much. Participants correctly identified AI-generated images 76% of the time and real photographs 74% of the time. 'That's very much in line with what other experiments have found,' Groh told KelloggInsight. 'It's halfway between random guessing and perfect identification.' The neuroscience of why you're bad at spotting AI images That leaves a lot of room for improvement. Which comes as no surprise to cognitive psychologist Arryn Robbins. On The Conversation recently, she explained the evolutionary basis for our struggles to spot AI images. 'Spotting errors in AI images requires noticing small details, but the human visual system isn't wired for that,' she writes. 'Human perceptual systems evolved to quickly assess environments for any threats to survival, with sensitivity to sudden changes – such as a quick-moving predator – sacrificing precision for speed of detection.' In short, you can blame your hunter-gatherer ancestors for your tendency to effectively scan for the gist of an image and miss that one person in the photo who has three legs. That ability kept early humans from becoming lunch (or starving from the lack of one), but it's not great for accurately spotting AI fakes today. Science-backed tips to get better at spotting AI fakes All of which is just scientific confirmation of what many entrepreneurs probably suspected. Humans are not great at identifying when an image is AI-generated. That should encourage us all to be a little more careful. But is there a more practical takeaway from this research? Actually, yes. The experts insist that, while your brain might not naturally excel at the sort of detailed observation required to spot AI fakes, a few simple tricks can make you much better at it. – Slow down. People only identified AI images about 75% of the time under normal circumstances. But they do a lot better if they remind themselves to look a little longer. Just devoting 10 seconds to looking at an image causes that success rate to jump to 80%. 'That's a big jump in accuracy,' Groh commented. – Know the most common AI flaws. Groh and his team also found that when people are explicitly told about common flaws in AI images, they get better at spotting them. In brief they are: weird anatomy (a sixth finger or strangely long neck), overstylisation (waxy skin, absurd levels of perfection), functional issues (a rigid slice of pizza, wildly misspelled signage), violations of the laws of physics (a mirror reflecting something different from what's in front of it), or cultural implausibilities (diversity in historical contexts when there is little chance it would exist). – Check the source. This step might not be worth your effort in low-stakes situations (go ahead and enjoy that AI-improved design inspo), but when spotting a fake matters, 'reverse image search can help trace a picture's origin,' suggests Robbins. 'If the metadata is missing, it might be generated by AI.' Humility rules (again) These tricks can make you modestly better at spotting. The most important takeaway from this research, however, might just be to remember you'll probably never be great at it. Especially if you're just casually scanning. That's just not how human brains work. The biggest lesson of all is the value of a little humility. (Yes, I'm on my favourite hobbyhorse once again.) Knowing that you, too, are susceptible to AI fakery should cause you to slow down, evaluate images more carefully, and double check anything important. You'll still get fooled sometimes. But thanks to steps like these you should be able to spot AI images far more often. – Inc./Tribune News Service
Malay Mail
11 hours ago
- Malay Mail
Kanye West makes brief court appearance to support Sean Combs in sex trafficking trial
NEW YORK, June 14 — US rapper Kanye West showed up at a Manhattan federal courthouse yesterday to support music mogul Sean Combs, who is on trial for alleged sex trafficking and racketeering. West, who has legally changed his name to Ye, never entered the courtroom; he briefly watched the proceedings in an adjacent room on closed-circuit video with one of Combs's sons and then left. When asked by broadcaster ABC whether he was there to support Combs, the 48-year-old West nodded and replied: "Yes." His brief appearance came one day after a former girlfriend of Combs wrapped up her testimony. The woman, speaking under the pseudonym Jane, delivered emotional, graphic details about how he allegedly pressured her into drug-fueled sex sessions with escorts. Her description closely tracked with the testimony of a previous star witness, Combs's longtime girlfriend Casandra Ventura, who said the encounters were called "freak-offs." In her testimony, Jane described traveling to Las Vegas last year on a well-known rapper's private plane, and that she had recommended a male escort to that rapper and his girlfriend. For nearly a month, jurors in the Manhattan court have heard a series of witnesses describing the influence the 55-year-old Combs exerted over staff and ex-girlfriends. Combs faces life in prison if convicted of racketeering and sex trafficking. The music mogul has pled not guilty to the charges against him, with his lawyers arguing that what prosecutors deem to be sex trafficking was in fact consensual. The trial is expected to continue at least through June. — AFP
