09-18-2025 
|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Disney (NASDAQ: DIS), Universal Studios, and Warner Bros. Discovery (NASDAQ: WBD) jointly filed a copyright lawsuit on Tuesday against Chinese startup MiniMax, accusing the company of “willful and brazen” copyright infringement through its artificial intelligence (AI)-powered image and video generating service Hailuo AI, which the plaintiffs claim was built from intellectual property stolen from Hollywood studios.
The suit, filed with the United States District Court for the Central District of California on September 16, claims that MiniMax operates, in the form of Hailuo AI, “a Chinese artificial intelligence image and video generating service that pirates and plunders Plaintiffs’ copyrighted works on a massive scale.”
MiniMax launched Hailuo AI in 2024 and markets it as a “Hollywood Studio in Your Pocket,” something the plaintiffs described as “an audacious self-anointed nickname given that MiniMax built its business from intellectual property stolen from Hollywood studios like Plaintiffs.”
Further, the Disney et al. filing claims that the Hailuo AI service “offers its subscribers an endless supply of infringing images and videos featuring Plaintiffs’ famous copyrighted characters,” and that MiniMax “completely disregards U.S. copyright law and treats Plaintiffs’ valuable copyrighted characters like its own.”
The lawsuit comes amid a string of AI-related copyright suits brought by major Hollywood studios, increasingly looking to protect their intellectual property from generative AI technology. Disney and Universal sued AI startup Midjourney in June, also alleging copyright infringement—the same law firm representing plaintiffs in this case, Jenner & Block LLP, is also acting for plaintiffs in the MiniMax case.
“We support innovation that enhances human creativity while protecting the contributions of countless creators and the entire creative industry. A responsible approach to AI innovation is critical, and today’s lawsuit against MiniMax again demonstrates our shared commitment to holding accountable those who violate copyright laws, wherever they may be based,” Disney, Universal, and Warner Bros. Discovery said in a joint statement, as reported by Variety on Tuesday.
Who is to blame
Debates around AI copyright infringement are ongoing. One of the principal issues is where to apportion blame, and therefore legal liability.
One argument is that the creator and operator of the generative AI is responsible for any copyright infringement committed by it (or using it). This is the stance Disney and the other Hollywood studios appear to be taking in the lawsuit against MiniMax.
However, another possible argument is that the users are the ones committing the copyright infringement, not the platform; thus, the individual users of Hailuo AI, who input the prompts and ask the AI to recreate copyrighted characters, are the ones who should be held liable.
In an attempt to preempt this latter defense from MiniMax, the filing makes three main counterpoints: First, MiniMax has the ability to control the copyright infringement because the company “controls and selects which of Plaintiffs’ Copyrighted Works are copied and used to train Hailuo AI”; second, MiniMax has the ability to control the prompts from its subscribers that are submitted to Hailuo AI and to block subscribers who request infringing content; and third, MiniMax already has protective measures in place that block subscriber prompts requesting violence, sexually explicit or pornographic material, defamatory or obscene material, or material for use in political campaigns, therefore, it could, if it wanted to, implement similar controls for copyrighted material.
The plaintiffs also claim they have asked MiniMax to stop using their copyrighted works without permission, to no avail.
In terms of restitution, Disney et al. are seeking up to $150,000 per infringed work. Based on the numerous cases of infringement cited in the suit this could mount to the millions of dollars. In addition, the plaintiffs seek permanent injunctive relief restraining MiniMax from continuing to infringe the copyrighted material or offering Hailuo AI without appropriate copyright protection.
MiniMax’s parent company, Shanghai Xiyu Jizhi Technology Co. Ltd, was also named a defendant in the suit. Neither has yet responded publicly to the suit.Disney vs Midjourney
On June 11, Disney and Universal filed their suit against AI startup Midjourney, claiming that the defendant is “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 a generative AI program and service created and hosted by the San Francisco-based independent research lab Midjourney, Inc., which describes itself as “an independent research lab exploring new mediums of thought.”
In contrast, the plaintiffs described Midjourney as “the quintessential copyright free-rider and a bottomless pit of plagiarism.”
For its part, in its response filing, Midjourney made two main counterpoints. First, it argued copyright law does not confer “absolute control over the use of copyrighted works” and that the limited monopoly granted by copyright must give way to so-called “fair use,” which safeguards the free flow of ideas and information.
“Training a generative AI model to understand concepts by extracting statistical information embedded in copyrighted works is a quintessentially transformative fair use,” stated the company’s filing.
Its second point was that the Midjourney platform is “an instrument for user expression,” and that it assists with the creation of images “only at the direction of its users, guided by their instructions, in what is often an elaborate and time-consuming process of experimentation, iteration, and discovery.”
In this regard, it also noted that its users are required to agree to the ‘Terms of Service,’ which states that they will refrain from infringing the intellectual property rights of others.
“Midjourney does not presuppose and cannot know whether any particular image is infringing absent notice from a copyright owner and information regarding how the image is used,” said the filing.
In other words, the company essentially claimed that the creations of its AI were transformative enough to be fair use, and even if they’re not, the users are responsible for creating them.
It remains to be seen which arguments will win out, as the case is ongoing, but this is not Midjourney’s first copyright infringement rodeo.
Along with fellow AI platforms DeviantArt and Stability AI, Midjourney was largely successful in getting a similar suit—accusing the firms and their generative AI programs of various copyright violations—largely dismissed, in November 2023.
However, in this instance, the plaintiffs were three individual artists, and the Judge’s reasoning revolved around a lack of evidence—i.e., not setting a substantial presence with regard to AI and copyright law. It’s fair to say that major corporations such as Disney and Warner Bros. Discovery may have greater resources with which to back up their claims against Midjourney.
In order for artificial intelligence (AI) to work right within the law and thrive in the face of growing challenges, it needs to integrate an enterprise blockchain system that ensures data input quality and ownership—allowing it to keep data safe while also guaranteeing the immutability of data. Check out CoinGeek’s coverage on this emerging tech to learn more why Enterprise blockchain will be the backbone of AI.
Watch | Alex Ball on the future of tech: AI development and entrepreneurship
Recommended for you
