The recent High Court decision in Getty Images (US) Inc and Others v. Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 38 (Ch) has garnered significant attention, marking a pivotal moment in the intersection of artificial intelligence (AI) and intellectual property (IP) law. This case addresses the complexities arising from the use of copyrighted materials in training AI models, setting a precedent for future disputes in this evolving field.

I – Background of the case

Getty Images, a renowned global visual content provider, initiated legal proceedings against Stability AI Ltd, an open-source generative AI company known for developing “Stable Diffusion,” a deep-learning model capable of generating images from textual descriptions.

Getty Images alleged that Stability AI unlawfully “scraped” millions of images from its websites without consent, utilizing these images to train and develop the Stable Diffusion model. Furthermore, Getty contended that the outputs of Stable Diffusion reproduced substantial parts of its copyrighted works and, in some instances, retained Getty’s watermarks, leading to claims of copyright infringement, database right infringement, trademark infringement, and passing off.

II – Legal framework

A – Copyright infringement

Under the UK’s Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA), copyright infringement occurs when a substantial part of a protected work is reproduced without authorization. Getty Images argued that Stability AI’s use of its images in training the AI model constituted such reproduction, thereby infringing upon its exclusive rights.

B – Database rights

Getty also claimed infringement of its database rights, asserting that the compilation of its images constitutes a database protected under the CDPA. The unauthorized extraction and reutilization of these images by Stability AI were alleged to violate these rights.

C – Trademark infringement and passing off

The presence of Getty’s watermarks in the outputs of Stable Diffusion formed the basis of the trademark infringement and passing off claims. Getty contended that such use could mislead consumers regarding the origin of the images, potentially damaging its brand reputation.

III – Court’s analysis and findings

One of the key issues raised concerned territorial jurisdiction and the location of the alleged infringing acts. Stability AI argued that the training and development of the Stable Diffusion model had been conducted entirely outside the United Kingdom, primarily in the United States.

However, the High Court identified inconsistencies in the statements made by Stability AI’s CEO, Mr. Emad Mostaque, particularly regarding the involvement of UK-based employees and resources. As a result, the Court found that there were plausible grounds to suggest that certain disputed activities had taken place in the UK, warranting a more thorough examination at trial.

Getty sought to act on behalf of a group of approximately 50,000 copyright holders who had granted it exclusive licenses. However, the Court rejected this request, deeming the group’s definition too vague, as it depended on the outcome of the litigation. Additionally, the Court highlighted the practical difficulty of precisely identifying the specific works used to train Stable Diffusion in the UK, posing an additional obstacle to the admissibility of the collective action.

Finally, the Court considered whether the Stable Diffusion software could be classified as an “article” within the meaning of Sections 22 and 23 of the CDPA, which govern secondary infringement related to the importation, possession, or distribution of illicit copies. Traditionally limited to tangible goods, these provisions, according to the Court, could potentially be extended to intangible objects such as software, paving the way for a significant evolution of copyright law in the digital age.

IV – Implications of the decision

A – For AI development

This case underscores the necessity for AI developers to exercise caution when utilizing third-party materials in training models. The court’s willingness to consider software as an “article” for the purposes of secondary infringement suggests that developers could face liability for unauthorized use of protected works, even in the absence of direct copying.

B – For Intellectual Property rights holders

The decision highlights the challenges IP rights holders face in protecting their works against unauthorized use in AI development. The court’s approach to jurisdiction and the interpretation of existing legal frameworks may influence how rights holders structure their agreements and enforcement strategies in the context of emerging technologies.

Conclusion

The Getty Images v. Stability AI case represents an important development in the intersection of AI and IP law. The court’s findings on jurisdiction, representative actions, and the interpretation of statutory terms reflect the evolving legal landscape as it adapts to technological advancements. As AI continues to integrate into various sectors, this decision serves as a critical reference point for both developers and rights holders navigating the complexities of IP protection in the digital era.

Need expert guidance on AI and intellectual property? Dreyfus Law Firm specializes in intellectual property law, including trademark, copyright, and AI-related legal matters. Our experts stay ahead of AI and copyright developments!

Dreyfus Law Firm collaborates with a global network of intellectual property attorneys.

Join us on social media !

LinkedIn  

Instagram