AI Firm Wins High Court Ruling After Photo Agency’s Copyright Claim

TL;DR: Stability AI has won a landmark UK High Court case against Getty Images over copyright infringement, with the judge ruling that an AI model not storing or reproducing copyright works is not an “infringing copy.” The decision is seen as a blow to creators’ rights, though Stability was found to have infringed Getty’s trademarks in some cases.

A London-based artificial intelligence firm has won a landmark High Court case examining the legality of AI models using vast troves of copyrighted data without permission. The ruling carries significant implications for the balance between creative industries and AI development.

The Core Ruling

Stability AI, whose directors include Oscar-winning filmmaker James Cameron (Avatar), successfully resisted a claim from Getty Images that it had infringed the international photo agency’s copyright.

Mrs Justice Joanna Smith ruled: “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’.”

However, the judge acknowledged the broader significance: “The question of where to strike the balance between the interests of the creative industries on one side and the AI industry on the other is of very real societal importance.”

What Getty Claimed

Getty Images sued Stability AI alleging the company was “completely indifferent to what they fed into the training data” and scraped and copied millions of its images to train Stable Diffusion, its image-generation model.

There was evidence that Getty’s images were used to train the model, which allows users to generate images with text prompts. Stability was also found to have infringed Getty’s trademarks in cases where AI-generated images included Getty watermarks.

Why the Case Narrowed

Getty had to drop its original copyright claim as there was no evidence the training took place in the UK. This significantly narrowed the scope of the case.

The photo agency continued with claims that Stability was still using copies of its visual assets within its systems, calling them the “lifeblood” of its business. Getty essentially argued that Stable Diffusion itself amounted to an infringing copy because its creation would have constituted copyright infringement had it been carried out in the UK.

The judge rejected this argument, focusing on whether the model currently stores or reproduces copyrighted works rather than how it was created.

Industry Implications

Rebecca Newman, a legal director at Addleshaw Goddard, warned the ruling means “the UK’s secondary copyright regime is not strong enough to protect its creators.”

Getty Images expressed concern: “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.”

The company urged governments to establish stronger transparency rules to prevent costly legal battles and allow creators to protect their rights.

Legislative Context

The judgment comes amid debate over how the Labour government should legislate on copyright and AI. Artists and authors including Elton John, Kate Bush, Dua Lipa, and Kazuo Ishiguro have lobbied for protection, whilst tech companies call for wide access to copyrighted content.

The government is consulting on copyright and AI, stating: “Uncertainty over how our copyright framework operates is holding back growth for our AI and creative industries. That cannot continue.”

One option being considered is introducing a “text and data mining exception” into UK copyright law, which would allow copyright works to be used to train AI models unless rights holders opt out.

Looking Forward

The ruling establishes that under current UK law, an AI model that doesn’t store or reproduce copyright works isn’t itself an infringing copy—regardless of whether copyrighted material was used during training (if that training occurred outside the UK).

For AI developers, this provides clarity that model architecture itself doesn’t constitute copyright infringement under these narrow circumstances. For creators and rights holders, it highlights gaps in existing copyright frameworks when applied to AI training.

Getty’s statement suggests the company will pursue Stability AI in another venue, indicating the broader copyright battle continues despite this UK ruling.

The case underscores the challenge of applying traditional copyright concepts developed for copying and distribution to fundamentally different AI training processes. Whether through judicial interpretation or legislative reform, substantial questions remain unresolved about the appropriate framework for AI model training and creators’ rights.

Source Attribution:

Share this article