Disney Enterprises v MiniMax

Disney Enterprises, Inc. et al. v. MiniMax et al. (Case No. 2:25-cv-08768, C.D. Cal.) is a copyright infringement lawsuit filed on September 16, 2025, by Disney, Lucasfilm, Warner Bros., and DC Comics against Chinese AI companies MiniMax, Hailuo AI, Shanghai Xiyu Jizhi Technology (SXJT), and Nanonoble, alleging that the defendants' AI video and image generation platform infringes on copyrighted characters from Star Wars, Marvel, and DC properties.^[1]^[2]

Parties

Plaintiffs

Disney Enterprises, Inc.
Lucasfilm Ltd.
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp.
Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.
DC Comics Inc.

Defendants

MiniMax (brand name)
Hailuo AI
Shanghai Xiyu Jizhi Technology (SXJT)
Nanonoble

Claims

Direct copyright infringement — generating AI outputs featuring copyrighted characters (Darth Vader, Spider-Man, Batman, etc.)
Contributory infringement — enabling users to create infringing content
Induced infringement — encouraging users to generate copyrighted characters^[3]

Key Motions

MiniMax/SXJT Motion to Dismiss (12(b)(2))

Defendants argue the court lacks personal jurisdiction: MiniMax is a brand name, not a legal entity subject to jurisdiction. SXJT, a Chinese firm, lacks U.S.-directed activities; any contacts trace to Nanonoble, not SXJT.^[2]^[3]

Nanonoble Motion to Dismiss (12(b)(6))

Nanonoble raises four principal arguments:^[2]^[3]^[4]

Lack of registered copyrights in individual characters — Disney's copyright registrations cover works containing the characters, not the characters themselves, which Nanonoble argues is insufficient under Ninth Circuit law
Extraterritoriality — AI models were trained in China, beyond the U.S. Copyright Act's extraterritorial reach, citing Subafilms, Ltd. v. MGM-Pathe
Contributory infringement fails the Cox Communications standard — no tailored service or inducement designed to facilitate infringement
Disney's own test generations do not constitute infringement — "A copyright owner cannot infringe its own copyright," citing Richmond v. Weiner (9th Cir. 1965)

Plaintiffs' Opposition

Disney counters with evidence of "in the wild" infringements — examples of MiniMax-generated infringing content posted on Instagram, Reddit, and other platforms by actual users. Disney also argues MiniMax's refusal to filter copyrighted characters despite having filtering capabilities for other content (e.g., violence) demonstrates willful blindness. Disney generated 52 test outputs demonstrating the platform's capacity to reproduce copyrighted characters.^[3]^[5]

Procedural History

September 16, 2025: Complaint filed in C.D. Cal.
April 13, 2026: Defendants file motions to dismiss — MiniMax/SXJT move under Rule 12(b)(2) (personal jurisdiction), Nanonoble moves under Rule 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim)
April 24, 2026: Deadline for motions or answers
April 29, 2026: Opening briefs on discovery disputes due^[2]
May 4, 2026: Opposition briefs on discovery disputes due^[2]
May 5, 2026: Joint dispute chart on discovery issues due^[2]
May 12, 2026: In-person status conference (Magistrate Judge Wang)^[2]
May 29, 2026: Hearings on motions to dismiss — no later than this date^[2]

Discovery has substantially concluded, though some discovery disputes remain unresolved. Disney has opposed Midjourney's separate request for documents related to Disney's own generative AI development, arguing such materials are irrelevant to the claims and defenses at issue.^[2]

As of April 26, 2026, the court has not ruled on the motions to dismiss. The case remains at the pleading stage.

Novel Legal Issues

This case raises unprecedented questions about:

Whether AI-generated character images constitute direct copyright infringement
Whether training AI models on copyrighted works outside the U.S. falls within U.S. copyright law's extraterritorial scope
Whether platform operators can be held secondarily liable for user-generated AI content under the Cox Communications standard
Whether copyright owners can generate their own infringing outputs as evidence and then sue
How U.S. courts handle personal jurisdiction over Chinese AI companies with U.S.-facing products but no domestic legal entity

References

[docket-1] Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. MiniMax, No. 2:2025cv08768 (C.D. Cal.)

[mckool-2] 2.0 ^2.1 ^2.2 ^2.3 ^2.4 ^2.5 ^2.6 ^2.7 ^2.8 McKool Smith AI Litigation Tracker

[chatgptiseatingtheworld-3] 3.0 ^3.1 ^3.2 ^3.3 ChatGPTIsEatingTheWorld: Nanonoble Moves to Dismiss Disney Copyright Claims

[vital-4] Vital Law - Copyright News: Studios Face Challenge Based on Cox Decision

[ipwatchdog-5] IPWatchdog - Disney Alleges Chinese AI Company's Copyright Infringement Is Willful and Brazen

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]