Yes, a class action lawsuit is actively targeting Midjourney for reproducing artists’ styles without permission or compensation. On January 13, 2023, illustrators Sarah Andersen, Kelly McKernan, and Karla Ortiz filed a lawsuit in the Northern District of California against Midjourney Inc, Stability AI Ltd, and DeviantArt Inc, alleging that the companies trained their AI models on billions of copyrighted images without authorization or consent. The lawsuit specifically claims that Midjourney’s system can reproduce the distinctive visual styles of named artists—for example, generating images “in the style of Sarah Andersen” or other artists—without those artists receiving any compensation or having agreed to have their work used for training.
Table of Contents
- What Are the Core Legal Claims in the Midjourney Artist Lawsuit?
- What Training Data Does Midjourney Use and How Was It Collected?
- How Many Artists Are Affected by This Lawsuit?
- What About the Lawsuits from Major Studios Like Disney and Universal?
- What Is the Current Status of the Artist Class Action Lawsuit?
- What Does This Lawsuit Mean for AI Regulation and Artist Rights?
- What’s Next for the Midjourney Litigation and When Might Artists See Resolution?
What Are the Core Legal Claims in the Midjourney Artist Lawsuit?
The original lawsuit filed by Andersen, McKernan, and Ortiz asserted multiple legal violations, and while a federal judge granted motions to dismiss some claims in August 2024, the court left the most significant allegations intact. The remaining claims include copyright infringement, trademark violations, trade dress violations, and inducement claims. The copyright infringement claim is the foundation of the case—the artists argue that Midjourney trained its generative AI system on their copyrighted artwork without licensing or permission, and that the system can now reproduce their distinctive artistic styles on demand.
This differs from traditional fair use arguments because Midjourney isn’t transforming the works into something substantially new; it’s using them as training data to enable reproduction of the artists’ exact stylistic characteristics. The trademark and trade dress claims focus on how Midjourney allows users to request images “in the style of” specific named artists. When a user types a prompt like “a painting in the style of Sarah Andersen,” they’re essentially using the artist’s name and reputation as a brand identifier to generate derivative work. The artists argue this violates their right to control how their identity and artistic reputation are used commercially, similar to how a trademark protects a company’s brand identity.
What Training Data Does Midjourney Use and How Was It Collected?
Midjourney’s AI model was trained on the LAION-5B dataset, which contains approximately 5.85 billion images that were allegedly scraped from the internet without proper authorization. The LAION-5B dataset itself was compiled from publicly available images, but “publicly available” does not mean “freely licensed for AI training”—most images on the internet retain copyright protections regardless of where they’re hosted. The sheer scale of this dataset is important to understand: 5.85 billion images means Midjourney ingested an almost incomprehensibly large volume of copyrighted work, making it effectively impossible for individual artists to have known their work was being used or to opt out. The specific issue for individual artists is that the training process wasn’t just passive or incidental.
A leaked list of artists revealed in January 2024 showed that at least 16,000 artists were explicitly identified and targeted in the training data used for Midjourney’s system. This wasn’t simply a case of random internet scraping—the training process actively catalogued and labeled artists by name, enabling the “style of [artist name]” functionality that now sits at the core of the litigation. The original lawsuit allegations named over 4,700 artists specifically. This targeting distinguishes the case from arguments about passive or incidental data collection; it shows deliberate curation of training data around specific, named creators.
How Many Artists Are Affected by This Lawsuit?
The scope of affected artists extends far beyond the three named plaintiffs. The original class action allegations specifically named 4,700+ artists, making this one of the largest creativity-based class actions in recent history. However, that number was dramatically expanded by the January 2024 leak of Midjourney’s training data, which revealed that approximately 16,000 artists were included in the lists used to train the AI system. This leaked data shows that the companies didn’t simply ingest random images—they actively compiled lists of artists and their work, enabling the precise style-matching that users now expect from the platform.
The scope matters legally and practically. If certified as a class action, this wouldn’t be limited to the 4,700 named artists; the class would potentially include all artists whose work was used to train Midjourney’s AI model without consent. For comparison, other major copyright class actions have settled with millions of dollars in total compensation, though individual payouts in large artist classes can be modest. The 16,000-artist figure from the leaked data gives a sense of how broad the potential class could be if the lawsuit succeeds on its merits.
What About the Lawsuits from Major Studios Like Disney and Universal?
Beyond the original artist class action, major entertainment studios have filed their own lawsuits against Midjourney, signaling that the copyright infringement issue applies at multiple levels of creative work. In June 2025, Disney and Universal filed a lawsuit alleging that Midjourney trained its system on copyrighted films and characters, and that the platform allows users to generate images that replicate protected characters like Mickey Mouse or characters from Universal films. Warner Bros. Discovery followed with a separate lawsuit filed on September 4, 2025. Unlike the artist class action, which focuses on individual creators’ rights, these studio cases allege direct infringement of some of the most valuable intellectual property in entertainment.
The studio cases are progressing on a different timeline than the individual artist class action. According to recent court filings, Disney’s case is the lead case among the studio lawsuits, and a Post-Mediation Status Conference is scheduled for August 31, 2026. This suggests the cases have already gone through private mediation, a step that sometimes precedes settlement discussions. The fact that multiple studios are pursuing separate cases—rather than consolidating immediately—reflects how broad the copyright concerns are. However, the artist class action and studio cases are distinct; a settlement in one wouldn’t necessarily resolve the claims in the other.
What Is the Current Status of the Artist Class Action Lawsuit?
As of October 2025, the artist class action brought by Andersen, McKernan, and Ortiz remains in the discovery phase, with no major substantive developments reported recently. After the August 2024 ruling that dismissed some claims but kept copyright infringement and related claims intact, the case has proceeded with both sides exchanging documents and evidence. Discovery is the phase where each side gathers information from the other, depositions occur, and the factual record develops. This phase can take months or years, and no trial date has been set.
The lack of recent major developments doesn’t mean the case is stalled—discovery is often a slower, less publicized phase than initial motions or trial. However, it does mean that artists and creators affected by the lawsuit have not yet seen any resolution, settlement offer, or judgment. Anyone who believes their work was used to train Midjourney should document their original artwork, its creation date, and any evidence that it was available online before Midjourney’s training occurred. As the case progresses, there will likely be opportunities for artists to join the class action or provide evidence of infringement, but no formal claim period has been announced yet.
What Does This Lawsuit Mean for AI Regulation and Artist Rights?
The Midjourney litigation represents a significant test of how copyright law applies to AI training. If the artists prevail on copyright infringement claims, it would establish that companies cannot legally train generative AI systems on copyrighted work without permission or compensation, even if that work is publicly available online. This would fundamentally reshape how AI companies operate and potentially require new licensing agreements with artists before training. Conversely, if Midjourney’s defense succeeds, it might allow broader use of copyrighted work for AI training under fair use arguments, which would be a setback for individual creators.
The case is happening against a backdrop of regulatory uncertainty. Some states and countries are considering legislation to require AI companies to obtain licenses from artists or to establish compensation systems. The Midjourney lawsuits are the courts’ way of testing these issues before any legislation is finalized. The outcome here could influence how other AI companies (OpenAI, Google, Adobe) are sued for similar practices, making this one of the most consequential copyright cases of the coming years.
What’s Next for the Midjourney Litigation and When Might Artists See Resolution?
The timeline for resolution in the artist class action remains uncertain. Discovery typically takes 12-24 months, after which the parties might attempt settlement negotiations or move toward summary judgment motions. A trial, if the case reaches that stage, could occur in 2026 or 2027. Settlement is also possible at any stage, and many large copyright class actions are resolved through settlement agreements rather than trial verdicts.
The studio cases, with their August 2026 mediation status conference, might reach resolution sooner, which could influence the artist settlement discussions. For individual artists, staying informed about the case’s progress is important. Class action notices will be distributed once a class is certified, and artists will have an opportunity to opt in or out. Settlement distributions, if they occur, might take the form of compensation funds, licensing agreements, or changes to how Midjourney operates. In the meantime, the litigation has already raised awareness about AI copyright issues and has prompted other platforms to reconsider their training data practices.