On the contrary. IANAL, but this is my understanding of the law (setting aside the "work for hire" thing for simplicity) 1. If you come up with something comp

On the contrary. IANAL, but this is my understanding of the law (setting aside the "work for hire" thing for simplicity) 1. If you come up with something completely new, you are the sole copyright holder. 2. If you take someone else's copyrighted work and transform it, then both of you have a copyright on the derivative work. So if you write a brand new comic book that includes Darth Vader, you can't sell that without Disney's permission [1]: they have a copyright on Darth Vader, and so your comic book is partly copyrighted by them. But at the same time, they can't sell it without your permission, because you have a copyright on the comic book too. In the case of Midjourney outputs, my understanding of the current state of the law is this: 1. Only humans can create copyrights 2. So if Midjourney creates an entirely new image that's not derivative of anyone else's work (as defined by long-established copyright law on derivative works), then nobody owns the copyright, and it's in the public domain 3. If Midjourney creates an image that is derived from someone else's work (as defined by long established copyright law on derivative works), then only Disney has a copyright on that derivative work. And so, in theory, Disney could distribute Darth Vader images you made with Midjourney, unless you can convince the court that you had enough creative influence over them to warrant a copyright. [1] Yes of course fair use, trying to make a point here