The eagerly anticipated High Court trial in the case of Getty Images v Stability AI began on 9 June 2025. The outcome of this case will be significant in addressing the use of copyrighted content by artificial intelligence technologies and will have wider implications for intellectual property rights and the artificial intelligence industry.
The parties
Both parties are well known in their respective fields. Getty Images ("Getty"), the claimant, is a household name visual media company and supplier of stock images, editorial photography, video, and music with a vast library of content. Stability AI ("Stability"), the defendant, is an artificial intelligence company, known for image generation via its AI model Stable Diffusion. Stable Diffusion produces images based on text or image prompts input by the user.
The issues on trial - breach of copyright
The first key issue before the High Court is copyright infringement. Getty alleges that Stability used millions of Getty's copyrighted content to train its AI model without permission. In support of this, Getty claims that Stability used links in Getty's dataset to obtain Getty content from websites, storing and copying this content to be used in the training. Getty claims that copying without consent infringes Getty's exclusive rights to reproduce Getty content, under section 17 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 ("CDPA"). Stability accepts that some of Getty's content was used during the training, but deny that this amounts to copyright infringement, due to the training taking place outside the UK. Therefore, they contend that no act which conflicts with Getty's intellectual property rights happened within the UK.
Getty further alleges that some of the works produced by Stability's AI model were markedly similar to the copyrighted content used to train it, with some even possessing Getty's watermarks. Getty contend that this infringes on Getty's exclusive rights to reproduce the content and communicate the content to the public, as well as the exclusive right to grant authority to reproduce or communicate the content. Getty argues that these infringements occur under sections 16(2) and 20 of the CDPA. Getty also argues that Stability's AI model is an infringing copy of Getty's content, of which Stability is responsible for importing into the UK, in breach of sections 22 and 23 of the CDPA.
Stability's position is that the content produced by its AI model only bears coincidental resemblance to Getty content, and that content produced by the AI model is not the responsibility of Stability but is instead down to the users of the model. Stability further contend that reasonable steps have been taken to prevent any infringements, and no infringements have been authorised.
The issues on trial - trademark infringement & passing off
The second key issue for determination is trademark infringement and passing off. Getty claims to have UK registered trademarks which appear as a watermark on Getty's content, and that these trademarks go in hand with Getty's reputation due to the volume of Getty's users and marketing campaigns within the UK. Getty claims that Stability has used Getty's trademarks to train it's AI model without authority, and that the content produced by the AI model bears Getty's trademarks. They argue that this amounts to deceptive trade practices and taking unfair advantage of Getty's trademark rights.
Stability denies this claim and contends that any watermarks produced by the AI model are not used by Stability nor an indicator of trademark use.
The issues on trial - database misuse
The third issue is database right infringement, as Getty asserts that Stability has extracted content from Getty's database without permission and used this content to train it's AI model. To support this claim, Getty has detailed the investment made into the database, including obtaining and verifying the contents.
Stability argue that Getty has not sufficiently demonstrated its database rights in order to claim that these rights have been infringed.
Commentary
The result of this case is highly anticipated by a number of industries, especially content creators and AI software providers. Across the pond Stability is also being sued in California for copyright infringement in an action brought by a number of artists. This case (and other similar actions) will likely provide clarity on the boundaries of using copyrighted material in AI model training and the management and protection of intellectual property. It will likely also shape the UK Government's proposals and policies going forward concerning use of AI and third-party content.
The case is also grappling with a number of difficult evidential issues as we previously wrote here. The High Court addressed some of these issues in its decision not to allow a representative (class) action in the Getty v Stability litigation (Getty Images (US) Inc v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 38 (Ch)).
If Getty successfully prove copyright infringement, there would be significant ramifications for the AI industry and all industries relying on such software. It is unclear whether AI developers can (in the absence of a full shut down of the model) exclude or limit the content the model utilises to produce its output. The High Court's decision will likely be sought to be appealed all the way to the UK Supreme Court and result in legislative intervention thereafter.
Rachel Robertson, Trainee Solicitor, contributed to the drafting of this article.
