Midjourney Wants Studios That Sued It to Show the Court How They Use AI

Mon, 06 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0000

AI image generator Midjourney is asking a federal court to force Warner Bros. Discovery, Disney, and Universal Studios to disclose internal details about how they use artificial intelligence — arguing that the very companies suing it for copyright infringement are likely engaged in the same training practices themselves.

The move represents a significant escalation in one of the most closely watched legal battles between the AI industry and Hollywood, with implications that could set precedent for future copyright disputes involving generative AI.

The Copyright Fight

Last year, the three major studios filed a lawsuit against Midjourney, accusing the AI image generator of copyright infringement. Their central claim: that Midjourney can generate images of copyrighted characters like Superman and Batman by training its models on protected material without permission.

Midjourney has pushed back, arguing that training AI models on publicly available images constitutes fair use under copyright law. Now, the company is taking the fight further by demanding the studios open their own AI playbooks.

What Midjourney Is Asking For

According to a report from Variety, Midjourney is seeking access to the studios’ AI business plans, research reports, training datasets, model weights, and even boardroom presentations about artificial intelligence. The company believes this evidence could prove that the studios themselves are training AI models on copyrighted works — the very practice they are trying to punish.

The request hit a roadblock in mid-June, when a magistrate judge ruled that the studios could withhold most of their AI-related information and only needed to hand over materials concerning “consumer-facing” AI applications. Midjourney is now asking the federal court to overturn that order.

“The Very Thing They Seek to Punish”

In its filing to the court, Midjourney argued that evidence of the studios’ own AI training practices is directly relevant to its fair use defense. As litigation publication Mealey’s reported, Midjourney attorney Bobby Ghajar wrote:

“If Plaintiffs are doing the very thing they seek to punish, that evidence goes to the heart of Midjourney’s fair use and unclean hands defenses.”

The “unclean hands” legal doctrine argues that a party seeking relief from the court must not have engaged in the same wrongful conduct themselves. If Midjourney can show the studios are training AI models on copyrighted content, it could significantly weaken their case.

Broader Implications

The outcome of this dispute could have far-reaching consequences for the AI and entertainment industries. The federal judge’s decision on what information must be disclosed could set a precedent for future AI copyright lawsuits, determining how much transparency courts can demand from companies on both sides of the table.

With generative AI continuing to reshape creative industries, the tension between AI developers and content owners is unlikely to ease anytime soon. This case may ultimately help define the boundaries of fair use in the age of AI — and whether the companies accusing others of infringement are willing to open their own books to scrutiny.

As the legal process unfolds, all eyes will be on the federal court’s response to Midjourney’s request, which could either narrow or expand the scope of discovery in AI copyright cases for years to come.

Why 3D TVs Failed: The Rise, Fall, and Legacy of Home 3D

Mon, 06 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0000

For a brief moment in the early 2010s, 3D TVs were everywhere. Television manufacturers shoved the technology into most of their sets, riding the wave of Hollywood’s obsession with stereoscopic releases like Avatar and How to Train Your Dragon. But by 2015, as the industry shifted focus to 4K and HDR, 3D had all but vanished from the living room. What went wrong?

As Engadget reports, the answer is a combination of poor user experience, lack of compelling content, and the rapid rise of more immediately gratifying technologies. Convenience is king in home entertainment, and 3D TVs proved to be anything but.

The Pain of Using 3D TVs

While many TVs released between 2010 and 2015 supported 3D, actually using the feature required clearing a series of frustrating hurdles. Consumers had to purchase 3D glasses — ranging from $10 to $20 for passive frames to upwards of $50 for active shutter glasses that required constant charging. You also needed a compatible Blu-ray player and had to pay a premium for 3D discs, assuming you could find them in stock.

For those willing to jump through those hoops, the experience was highly dependent on screen size and viewing distance. On a 42-inch or 50-inch set, the immersion of Avatar’s Pandora simply didn’t translate. Worse still, passive 3D glasses effectively halved the resolution of 1080p since the display had to deliver separate images for each eye. Active shutter glasses avoided that issue on higher-end TVs, but the expense and battery limitations made viewing parties all but impossible.

Outside of dedicated Blu-rays, 3D content was scarce. The BBC and ESPN both experimented with 3D broadcasts but gave up on the format in 2013. “I have never seen a very big appetite for 3D television in the UK,” BBC’s head of 3D, Kim Shillinglaw, told Radio Times at the time. “Watching 3D is quite a hassly experience in the home.”

4K and HDR: The Killer Blow

As the hype around 3D TVs waned, 4K sets with HDR started cropping up with far more immediate benefits. They looked noticeably sharper and brighter than earlier HDTVs, and they were buoyed by a wealth of 4K content from Netflix and other streaming services. There was no need to buy a special Blu-ray player, no need to put on glasses, and no need to hunt for compatible content. It’s no wonder 4K took off.

According to a study by Precision Reports cited by Engadget, only around 25 percent of households with 3D TVs actually used the technology during the peak period between 2010 and 2018. Fewer than 10 percent kept using it after three years. The report found that 65 percent of users stopped due to lack of content, 50 percent cited discomfort during long viewing sessions, and 42 percent gave up because of high equipment costs.

Hollywood’s 3D Problem

The trouble wasn’t just at home — Hollywood itself played a major role in 3D’s demise. After the initial rush of hits like Avatar and Alice in Wonderland, studios rushed to convert existing 2D films to 3D, often with poor results. While James Cameron meticulously built Avatar around a true stereoscopic 3D camera system, releases like Clash of the Titans were hastily upscaled, resulting in muddy, depth-less visuals that left audiences feeling ripped off.

By 2012, major films like Pixar’s Brave and Madagascar 3 saw serious drops in their 3D ticket sales. Producer Jeffrey Katzenberg told The Hollywood Reporter in 2011: “We have disappointed our audience multiple times now. The audience has spoken, and they have spoken really loudly.”

The number of genuinely great native 3D films remained small: Avatar, Gravity, Hugo, Life of Pi, and The Martian among them. This tiny library of quality titles meant that even the technology’s biggest fans had little to choose from.

Where to Watch 3D Today

Unless you’ve kept an old 3D TV and Blu-ray player around, options for watching 3D content today are limited — and expensive. Many modern projectors support 3D, with BenQ models being well-regarded. VR headsets like the Apple Vision Pro and Meta Quest offer spectacular 3D movie experiences, but come at a premium price.

Despite its failure in the home, 3D isn’t entirely dead. Precision Reports predicts that the 3D TV category could grow by 15 percent by 2036, driven by glasses-free 3D technology, commercial implementations, and gaming. But for now, the dream of mainstream home 3D remains a relic of the early 2010s — a reminder that in consumer tech, convenience and content are everything.

Hollywood on Know the Tech