Getty Images’ high-profile copyright lawsuit against Stability AI has opened at London’s High Court, a case that could reshape how UK law treats the use of copyrighted material in artificial intelligence. The Seattle-based image licensing firm accuses Stability AI of unlawfully using millions of its images to train the Stable Diffusion model, which generates images from text prompts.
This legal battle is one of several emerging in response to generative AI tools, which have raised urgent questions about copyright and the use of creative content. Stability AI denies the allegations, insisting its practices reflect a commitment to innovation and creative freedom. A spokesperson said artists using their tools produce work inspired by collective human knowledge—a principle they argue aligns with fair use doctrine.
The case’s implications stretch far beyond these two companies. A ruling in Getty’s favour could set a legal precedent, subjecting AI firms to increased scrutiny and potential liabilities. Legal experts suggest it could shape UK policy on copyright in the digital age. Rebecca Newman of Addleshaw Goddard described the case as navigating “unparalleled legal terrain,” while Cerys Wyn Davies of Pinsent Masons warned the outcome could influence market practices and the UK’s attractiveness for AI development.
The lawsuit is part of a broader wave of legal action. Visual artist Kelly McKernan has filed claims against AI companies over copyright infringement, citing lost freelance opportunities as clients turn to cheaper, AI-generated content. Meanwhile, Getty is also pursuing legal action in the US, underscoring the global ramifications of these disputes.
Stability AI has questioned the UK court’s jurisdiction, arguing its model was trained on servers outside the country. The jurisdictional complexity adds another layer to a case already seen as a landmark in copyright law.
Creative industry figures, including Elton John, have called for stronger protections for artists, warning that unchecked AI development threatens the integrity of the creative process. They argue creators’ rights must be protected from exploitation.
As the case unfolds, its significance is clear. The court’s decision could either solidify the operational basis for generative AI or force a recalibration of how innovation and intellectual property coexist. With legal and policy developments also underway in other jurisdictions, the outcome may influence how governments approach AI regulation—and how the rights of human creators are protected in a rapidly changing digital landscape.
Created by Amplify: AI-augmented, human-curated content.
