TLDR: Getty Images has largely lost its landmark UK copyright infringement lawsuit against generative AI firm Stability AI. The London High Court dismissed most of Getty’s claims, including primary and secondary copyright infringement, due to a lack of evidence that Stability AI’s models were trained in the UK and the court’s finding that AI models do not store copyrighted works. However, Getty secured a partial victory on trademark infringement, as the court acknowledged that Getty watermarks appeared in some AI-generated images.
In a closely watched legal battle with significant implications for the burgeoning generative artificial intelligence industry, Getty Images has largely been defeated in its UK copyright infringement lawsuit against Stability AI. On November 4, 2025, London’s High Court of Justice, presided over by Justice Joanna Smith, delivered a ruling that dismissed the major portions of Getty’s claims, marking a notable setback for the stock photography giant.
The lawsuit, initially filed by Seattle-based Getty Images in 2023, accused Stability AI, the creator of the Stable Diffusion image-generation model, of ‘brazen infringement’ on a ‘staggering scale.’ Getty alleged that Stability AI had unlawfully scraped millions of its copyrighted images to train its AI models. However, during the trial, Getty was compelled to drop its central claim of direct copyright infringement after failing to provide sufficient evidence that the AI model’s training activities took place within the United Kingdom. Reports indicated that the training occurred outside the UK, possibly on Amazon’s servers. Justice Smith emphasized that without proof of activity within British jurisdiction, the court could not rule on whether the AI’s training violated UK copyright law.
Furthermore, the court dismissed Getty’s argument for secondary copyright infringement. Justice Smith clarified that generative AI models like Stable Diffusion do not store actual copies of the content they are trained on; instead, they record ‘weights.’ Consequently, the legal concept of secondary infringement, which typically applies to the importation of infringing content, was deemed inapplicable.
Despite these significant losses, Getty Images did secure a partial victory on its trademark infringement claim. Justice Smith affirmed that the presence of Getty watermarks on certain images generated by Stability AI’s Stable Diffusion models constituted trademark infringement. This aspect of the ruling was described as ‘historic and extremely limited in scope’ by Justice Smith herself.
Both parties have interpreted the ruling as a win, albeit for different reasons. Stability AI’s general counsel, Christian Dowell, stated that the ruling ‘ultimately resolves the copyright concerns that were the core issue.’ Conversely, Getty Images hailed its partial win on trademark infringement as ‘a significant win for intellectual property owners,’ asserting that it demonstrates ‘intangible articles, such as AI models, are subject to copyright infringement claims.’
Legal experts, however, offered varied perspectives. Some suggest the ruling could weaken intellectual property laws, while others believe it provides some clarity for trademark protection in the context of AI-generated outputs. Rebecca Newman, a lawyer at Addleshaw Goddard, commented that the outcome meant ‘copyright owners’ exclusive right to reap what they have sown has been avoided on a technicality,’ highlighting perceived weaknesses in Britain’s copyright protections.
Also Read:
- Amazon Initiates Legal Action Against Perplexity AI Over Automated Shopping Bot
- Google DeepMind Advances AI Content Verification with Expanded SynthID Capabilities and Detector Portal
This UK decision is one of several high-profile international lawsuits testing the application of copyright law to AI systems. Getty Images has also pursued similar legal actions against Stability AI in the United States, including a separate case filed in California, indicating that the global legal landscape for generative AI and intellectual property remains in flux.
