Midjourney is trying to force Disney, Universal and Warner Bros. to reveal how they use artificial intelligence as it defends itself from a potentially ruinous copyright lawsuit.

The studios sued the AI image lab last year, accusing it of enabling massive infringement of their copyrighted characters. Midjourney has claimed “fair use” and has argued that the studios are engaged in the very same AI practices.

In June, a magistrate judge limited Midjourney’s ability to obtain discovery from the studios about their AI use, saying the studios would have to turn over information only about “consumer-facing” AI applications.

Midjourney’s lawyers filed a motion this week urging Judge John Kronstadt to overturn that decision, arguing that the studios should have to divulge more much about how AI is used behind the scenes.

“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,” wrote Midjourney’s attorney, Bobby Ghajar.

Midjourney wants the three studios to reveal its AI business plans, research reports, training datasets, model weights, and other data that would show how they use AI tools to create and market movies and TV shows. The company has also sought the studios’ board meeting presentations about AI.

The studios agreed to turn over information only about consumer-facing AI applications — but not about any internal AI tools.

In a ruling on June 15, the magistrate judge, Joel Richlin, denied Midjourney’s attempt to obtain broad information about the studios’ AI use, finding it irrelevant to the question of whether Midjourney infringed on the studios’ copyrights.

Midjourney’s motion argues that it should also be allowed to dig deeper.

“If Plaintiffs are developing image-generating AI models — trained on unlicensed, third-party copyrighted data — for internal use in storyboarding or ideating content for film or TV, that evidence would equally demonstrate that it is an industry custom, even among the studios themselves, to download and train AI on unlicensed copyrighted content,” Ghajar wrote.

The studios’ lead attorney, David Singer, has previously argued that Midjourney is seeking to go on a “fishing expedition” to distract from its own misconduct.

“Plaintiffs do not seek to stop AI technology or even shut down Midjourney’s business,” Singer wrote in opposing Midjourney’s initial discovery motion. “Plaintiffs simply want Midjourney to stop copying their movies and TV shows and to stop distributing, publicly displaying, publicly performing, and creating derivative works that include copies of Plaintiffs’ famous characters without authorization—the same rights any copyright holder would assert against any infringer, AI-powered or otherwise.”