A High Court ruling largely in favour of Stability AI over Getty Images will “frustrate many in the creative industries”, according to a legal expert.
Getty had accused Stability AI – a London GenAI firm which counts Avatar director James Cameron (pictured) among several leading names on its board – of infringing its copyright by using 12 million of its images to train the Stable Diffusion AI model.
This summer Getty withdrew its primary copyright and database infringement claims as it was unable to prove that training took place in the UK. The secondary, narrower claim amounted to an accusation that Stability had brought images trained on unlicensed works into the UK – akin to ‘importing infringing copies’.
Justice Joanna Smith disagreed, stating: “An AI model such as Stable Diffusion which does not store or reproduce any copyright works – and has never done so – is not an ‘infringing copy’.”
An accompanying trademark claim alleged that the AI model sometimes generated images with Getty’s watermarks on them. Getty partially succeeded with that claim.
Justice Smith said striking a balance between the creative industries’ interests and the AI industry was “of very real societal importance”.
In a statement, Getty Images said: “We remain deeply concerned that even well-resourced companies such as Getty Images face significant challenges in protecting their creative works given the lack of transparency requirements. We invested millions of pounds to reach this point with only one provider that we need to continue to pursue in another venue.
“We urge governments, including the UK, to establish stronger transparency rules, which are essential to prevent costly legal battles and to allow creators to protect their rights.”
Christian Dowell, general counsel for Stability AI, said: “We are pleased with the court’s ruling on the remaining claims in this case. Getty’s decision to voluntarily dismiss most of its copyright claims at the conclusion of trial testimony left only a subset of claims before the court, and this final ruling ultimately resolves the copyright concerns that were the core issue.”
Nick Eziefula, partner at media and entertainment law firm Simkins LLP, said “the decision will frustrate many in the creative industries, who are calling for stronger, modernised copyright protections against the unauthorised use of their work by AI developers”.
He added: “The judge ruled that existing laws, drafted in an era of physical piracy, cannot easily be stretched to cover AI systems that do not store copies of the original works.
“This case underscores a growing gap between old copyright law and new technology. The creative sector is now looking to lawmakers – and future court battles – to deliver clearer answers and fairer frameworks for ethical, transparent AI innovation.”
Jonathan Ball, partner at law firm Norton Rose Fulbright, said: “Given that evidence showed that certain Stability models would reproduce proprietary watermarks on synthetic images… this confirms that AI developers can be liable for outputs that misuse protected marks.”
Simon Barker, partner and head of intellectual property at law firm Freeths, said: “AI developers can take some comfort from the case that the mere act of training on large datasets will not of itself expose them to liability for copyright infringement in the UK.
“However, the judgment also serves as a warning that if AI-generated outputs reproduce protected trademarks, for example where they appear as watermarks, in a way that could confuse people then they will risk infringing those trademarks. Each case will turn on its own facts and rights holders will need to evidence a likelihood of confusion or association with the relevant trademark to succeed.”
Robert Guthrie, partner in the IP disputes practice at Osborne Clarke, said: “This judgment is a big win for Stability AI and AI developers generally.
“Attention now turns to the government’s consultation on AI and copyright, which is considering whether the current law should be amended. This judgment will undoubtedly be seized on by copyright owners as evidence that the current law needs strengthening in their favour and by AI developers as evidence that their use of copyright works is legitimate.”
Stability AI was rescued in 2024 after failing to generate revenues anywhere near strongly enough to cover the costs of developing its AI models.
Its board is a high-profile roster of Silicon Valley veterans while it now has partnerships with Big Tech companies and the likes of WPP.
UK regulator deepens probe into £3bn Getty-Shutterstock merger