Judgment in Getty Images v Stability AI seen as a setback for copyright owners as calls grow for new UK rules on AI training data
A London-based artificial intelligence company has won a closely watched High Court case that tested whether AI developers can lawfully train their models using vast libraries of copyrighted material.
Stability AI, whose board includes Avatar film-maker James Cameron, successfully defended a lawsuit brought by Getty Images, which alleged that the company had infringed copyright by scraping millions of its photographs to train the image-generation model Stable Diffusion.
Mrs Justice Joanna Smith found that Getty had failed to prove that the training took place in the UK and ruled that the resulting AI model did not constitute an “infringing copy” under existing law. Getty did, however, succeed on limited trademark claims after some AI-generated images were found to contain replicas of the Getty watermark.
The ruling is viewed as a blow to copyright owners’ ability to control how their work is used in AI training. Rebecca Newman, legal director at Addleshaw Goddard, said it highlights that “the UK’s secondary copyright regime is not strong enough to protect its creators.”
Evidence presented in court showed that Getty’s images had been used to train Stability’s model, which creates pictures from text prompts. Getty argued that Stability was “completely indifferent” to what it ingested, but the judge said the dispute underscored a wider societal question about “where to strike the balance between the creative industries and the AI sector.”
The decision comes amid intense debate over how the Labour government should legislate to manage the competing interests of artists and AI developers. Figures including Elton John, Kate Bush, Dua Lipa and Kazuo Ishiguro have urged ministers to protect creative rights, while technology firms argue for broad access to copyrighted data to build powerful generative models.
The government is consulting on proposals to create a “text and data mining” exception in UK law, which would allow copyright works to be used for AI training unless rights-holders explicitly opt out.
In a statement, Getty said it remained “deeply concerned” about the lack of transparency rules governing AI data use.
“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 said. “We urge governments, including the UK, to establish stronger transparency requirements to prevent costly legal battles and to allow creators to protect their rights.”
Christian Dowell, general counsel for Stability AI, welcomed the decision: “Getty’s voluntary dismissal of most of its copyright claims left only a subset of issues before the court, and this final ruling resolves the copyright concerns that were at the core of the case.”
Gosia Evans, senior solicitor in Harper James’ intellectual property team, said the judgment still leaves the key question unanswered: “Should training AI models on copyrighted works be lawful in the UK? We need government to regulate AI use in a way that is practical and forward-thinking, without removing protections vital to the UK’s creative economy.”
The case is likely to influence future disputes over how AI systems source their data — and to intensify pressure on policymakers to clarify where copyright ends and machine learning begins.
