Stable Diffusion Wins Major UK Copyright Battle Against Getty

In a landmark decision for the generative AI industry, the High Court in London has dismissed the primary copyright lawsuit brought by Getty Images against Stability AI. The case centered on the critical question of whether training an AI model on copyrighted images constitutes copyright infringement.

Getty Images had accused Stability AI of unlawfully scraping millions of its photographs to train the Stable Diffusion model, framing it as a major threat to the creative industry. However, Getty ultimately dropped its most significant claims concerning the model's training process and the images it produces.

The Core of the Copyright Dispute

The case was significantly narrowed after it was determined that there was no evidence the AI model training actually occurred within the UK. This shifted the legal focus to secondary issues, such as whether the Stable Diffusion model itself could be classified as an "infringing copy."

Getty argued that because the model's weights were created using copyrighted material, the model should be considered an infringing article under UK law, even if the training happened elsewhere. The company contended that if the training had been done in the UK, it would have constituted direct infringement.

Court Rules AI Models Are Not Infringing Copies

Judge Joanna Smith firmly disagreed with Getty's position. In her ruling, she clarified that an AI model like Stable Diffusion, which "does not store or reproduce any Copyright Works," cannot be considered an "infringing copy" under the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (CDPA). The judgment, detailed in the official court documents, established that while the law can apply to intangible items, Getty's argument was not legally sound in this context.

A Minor Victory on Trademark Infringement

Getty Images did achieve a limited success regarding trademark infringement. The court acknowledged that certain older versions of Stable Diffusion could, in specific instances, generate images containing watermarks that resembled the trademarks of Getty Images or its subsidiary, iStock.

However, the judge emphasized the limited scope of this finding. She noted that it was "impossible to know how many (or even on what scale) watermarks have been generated in real life" that would match this infringing pattern. The court also dismissed Getty's associated claims for reputational damage and denied any basis for awarding additional damages.