Engadget42%

Midjourney Wants The Hollywood Studios That Sued It To Show The Court How They Use AI 6%

By Mariella Moon44%

7/4/2026, 11:33:18 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 8 faulty reasoning types, including Availability Heuristic, Confirmation Bias, and Circular Reasoning, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 17.3% saturation with 49 hits. Analysis detected 246 faulty-reasoning hits from 284 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 21.4% and a BS Rank of 6% (20,715 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 94.60% of the article peer group.

Midjourney wants to see how Warner Bros. 
Discovery, Disney and Universal Studios use artificial intelligence technologies in their shows and movies, and according to Variety it wants the companies to submit that information to court. 
Last year, the studios filed a lawsuit against the AI image generator, accusing it of copyright infringement for being able to generate images of Superman, Batman and other copyrighted characters. 
Midjourney argued that training AI with publicly available images is fair use and that the studios themselves use the same training practices for their own AI models. 
Specifically, Midjourney is asking for the studios' AI business plans, research reports, training datasets, model weights and even the presentations about AI the companies used for their board meetings. 
However, in mid-June, a magistrate judge allowed the studios to withhold most information involving their AI use and to hand over only information related to "consumer-facing" AI applications. 
Now, Midjourney is asking the federal court to overturn that judge's order. 
According to litigation publication Mealey's, Midjourney's reasoning is that the evidence it's asking for is related to its fair use defense. 
If the image generator can show that the studios themselves are training their own models on copyrighted works, then it could weaken their lawsuit. 
"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 attorney Bobby Ghajar. 
The federal judge's decision for this case could have an effect on future lawsuits, as it could set a precedent on what kind of information should and can be admitted in court. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 10.6%Mariella Moon: 4.1%Engadget: 3.1%Confirmation Bias10.6%This article: 0.0%Mariella Moon: 1.2%Engadget: 1.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 11.3%Mariella Moon: 1.8%Engadget: 3.1%Availability Heuristic11.3%This article: 0.0%Mariella Moon: 0.9%Engadget: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Mariella Moon: 0.4%Engadget: 0.6%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mariella Moon: 3.1%Engadget: 2.6%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mariella Moon: 7.7%Engadget: 6.0%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Mariella Moon: 1.4%Engadget: 1.0%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Mariella Moon: 1.3%Engadget: 0.8%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mariella Moon: 0.0%Engadget: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 8.5%Mariella Moon: 5.2%Engadget: 4.6%Optimism Bias8.5%This article: 0.0%Mariella Moon: 1.4%Engadget: 2.2%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mariella Moon: 4.8%Engadget: 7.0%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 9.5%Mariella Moon: 2.3%Engadget: 1.6%Self-Serving Bias9.5%This article: 0.0%Mariella Moon: 0.4%Engadget: 0.4%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Mariella Moon: 0.0%Engadget: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mariella Moon: 0.2%Engadget: 0.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mariella Moon: 0.3%Engadget: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mariella Moon: 2.0%Engadget: 1.9%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Mariella Moon: 0.3%Engadget: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Mariella Moon: 0.0%Engadget: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Mariella Moon: 0.4%Engadget: 1.8%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mariella Moon: 0.0%Engadget: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Mariella Moon: 0.0%Engadget: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mariella Moon: 0.0%Engadget: 0.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Mariella Moon: 0.0%Engadget: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 17.3%Mariella Moon: 7.2%Engadget: 4.9%Appeal to Authority17.3%This article: 0.0%Mariella Moon: 0.9%Engadget: 1.2%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Mariella Moon: 0.6%Engadget: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 10.6%Mariella Moon: 0.2%Engadget: 0.1%Circular Reasoning10.6%This article: 0.0%Mariella Moon: 3.2%Engadget: 5.3%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Mariella Moon: 0.2%Engadget: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Mariella Moon: 0.3%Engadget: 0.9%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Mariella Moon: 2.1%Engadget: 3.2%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 8.5%Mariella Moon: 2.0%Engadget: 1.0%Begging the Question8.5%This article: 0.0%Mariella Moon: 2.2%Engadget: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Mariella Moon: 0.6%Engadget: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Mariella Moon: 0.4%Engadget: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Mariella Moon: 0.1%Engadget: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Mariella Moon: 0.0%Engadget: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Mariella Moon: 1.4%Engadget: 2.3%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Mariella Moon: 0.0%Engadget: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Mariella Moon: 2.9%Engadget: 2.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Mariella Moon: 0.0%Engadget: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Mariella Moon: 0.0%Engadget: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Mariella Moon: 0.0%Engadget: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Mariella Moon: 0.3%Engadget: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Mariella Moon: 0.5%Engadget: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 10.6%Mariella Moon: 3.8%Engadget: 2.9%Unattributed Quote10.6%This article: 0.0%Mariella Moon: 1.7%Engadget: 1.2%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Mariella Moon: 1.9%Engadget: 7.5%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Mariella Moon: 0.6%Engadget: 1.0%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Mariella Moon: 0.0%Engadget: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mariella Moon: 0.0%Engadget: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mariella Moon: 9.6%Engadget: 4.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

284 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker11%attributed speech254writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageBobby Ghajar • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Bobby Ghajar

100%flagged-word coverage
30 attributed words100% of attributed speech52% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Bobby Ghajar: 100.0%100.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.