The High Court case of Getty Images v. Stability AI has quickly emerged as a landmark in shaping legal standards for artificial intelligence and copyright. At its core is a pivotal question: can AI systems lawfully train on copyrighted material without explicit permission from rights holders? The outcome is expected to influence not only UK law but global approaches to copyright in the age of AI. Getty Images claims that Stability AI unlawfully used millions of its images to train Stable Diffusion, a prominent AI model. Stability AI denies any infringement, arguing that its technology enables creative expression and aligns with fair use principles. The case touches on broader issues, from how training data is sourced and who benefits from AI to the need for protecting the rights of original content creators. One company urging ethical practice is Photoroom, which supports training AI models on authorised data. Its stance reflects a growing industry consensus that respecting copyright and maintaining transparency are essential to building public trust and fostering responsible innovation. This view aligns with wider calls for a strong legal framework to balance innovation and creators' rights. The court has rejected Stability AI’s bid to dismiss the case, allowing it to proceed to trial—a clear sign that Getty’s claims raise serious legal questions. The trial is set to explore complex areas including copyright infringement, database rights, trademark issues and passing off—all crucial to the evolving landscape of AI-generated content. Stability AI argues that the training occurred on servers in the US and that only a small fraction of outputs closely resemble Getty’s images. How the court assesses jurisdiction and the nature of AI-generated content will have far-reaching implications for global AI operations and intellectual property law. Getty, meanwhile, continues to back AI ventures that respect copyright. Among them is BRIA, an AI image generator that recently raised $24 million. BRIA licenses its training data from stock image providers, offering a lawful and commercially viable path forward that avoids trademark infringement and preserves creative integrity. The case carries wider significance for how societies govern AI’s role in content creation and licensing. A ruling in favour of Getty could lead to stricter licensing requirements for training data, potentially reshaping how AI systems are built and deployed. A decision supporting Stability AI, by contrast, might endorse broader use of copyrighted material in training—raising questions about the sustainability of creative industries. Legal observers are also watching how the court handles procedural hurdles, such as identifying claimants and specific works used in training. These challenges highlight the difficulties in applying traditional copyright rules to fast-evolving AI technologies and may prompt reforms in how intellectual property is defined and enforced. As the trial unfolds, it represents more than a legal dispute. It is a defining moment for the future of AI and copyright—a test of how innovation can proceed without undermining the rights of creators. The verdict will be closely watched by stakeholders across law, technology and the creative sector, as it could set the course for responsible AI development in the UK and beyond.
Created by Amplify: AI-augmented, human-curated content.
