UK Court Delivers Mixed Verdict in Getty vs. Stability AI Copyright Case, Leaving Key Questions Unanswered

Court Ruling in Getty's AI Copyright Case Has Both Sides Claiming a Win. Here's Why

A new court ruling has tumbled into place in the kaleidoscope of cases intended to set boundaries on what AI companies can and can't do with creative works produced by humans, and by extension what it is that AI tools can serve up to their users. On Tuesday, Justice Joanna Smith ruled that Stability AI, which makes the popular Stable Diffusion image models, did not violate copyright law in training those models, in a case brought against it by Getty Images. Smith said that Stability AI did not infringe upon Getty's image copyright protections because it doesn't "store or reproduce any Copyright Works and nor has it ever done so." But as in many AI lawsuits, the UK court decision was narrow and nuanced rather than sweeping. Smith determined that Getty succeeded "in part" when arguing that Stability AI had violated its trademark protections when it allowed its users to create images that resemble the iStock and Getty Images logos. That success, she said, applies only under certain statutes or laws. Smith called her findings both "historic" and "extremely limited" in scope. It's a sentiment that echoes rulings issued by US courts, highlighting the lack of a consensus among courts when it comes to dealing with copyright claims in the age of AI. The UK lawsuit was one of the first big cases of a major content library alleging that an AI company acted illegally when scraping its content from the web. Companies like Stability AI need a vast quantity of human-generated content to build their models. In cases involving similar allegations in the US, Anthropic and Meta emerged largely victorious over authors claiming their books were used for training without their permission or compensation. Because of the complexities in Tuesday's ruling, both companies found room to claim victory. Getty called the outcome a win for intellectual property owners, given that the ruling said Stable Diffusion infringed Getty trademarks when it included them in AI‑generated outputs. "Crucially, the Court rejected Stability AI's attempt to hold the user responsible for that infringement, confirming that responsibility for the presence of such trademarks lies with the model provider, who has control over the images used to train the model," Getty said in a statement. But Smith's ruling dealt with secondary copyright claims presented by Getty after it dropped its primary claims earlier this year, something that Stability AI homed in on. "Getty's decision to voluntarily dismiss most of its copyright claims at the conclusion of trial testimony left only a subset of claims before the court," Stability AI's general counsel Christian Dowell said in a statement, "and this final ruling ultimately resolves the copyright concerns that were the core issue." Smith stressed that her ruling is specific to the evidence and arguments presented in this particular case. That means that another, similar case could have a different outcome, depending on the exact claim and statute being considered. Similar legal intricacies have been at play in other copyright infringement rulings. US copyright law has decades of precedent and a four-part test for judges to weigh. But the novelty of generative AI tech has presented a number of questions for courts to consider, with advocates arguing that existing law isn't sufficient to protect creators. Every ruling we get from these cases helps build up a new set of precedents for courts to consider. For creators, this new ruling means a couple of things. First, those who use Stability AI in the UK should be able to continue to do so unimpeded. But creators worried about having their work used to train AI models still face the possibility of having their digital content included in training databases.

Stability AI's legal win over Getty leaves copyright law in limbo

Stability AI, the creator of popular AI art tool Stable Diffusion, was largely victorious against Getty Images on Tuesday in a British legal battle over the material used to train AI models. The case originally looked set to produce a landmark ruling on AI and copyright in the UK, but it landed with a thud and failed to set any clear precedent for the big question dividing AI companies and creative firms: whether AI models need permission to train on copyrighted works. The case, first filed in 2023, is the first major AI copyright claim to reach England's High Court, though the verdict offers little clarity to other AI companies and rightsholders. Getty had originally pursued the core issue of training on copyrighted material but dropped it mid-trial, largely due to weak evidence. Getty, which has a large archive of images and video, sued Stability in 2023 for "unlawfully" scraping millions of images to train its software. In her ruling, high court judge Joanna Smith did find in Getty's favor that Stability had infringed its trademark by creating images that feature its watermarks. Smith rejected Getty's claim of secondary copyright infringement as "Stable Diffusion does not store or reproduce" any copyrighted works. Getty will hope for a stronger result in its favor in an ongoing case against Stability in the US, which it originally filed in Delaware shortly after the UK case in 2023. It voluntarily dismissed and refiled in California this August. Its lawsuits are among many copyright cases between AI companies and creative firms over how generative models are made. Anthropic recently agreed to pay $1.5 billion to settle a lawsuit brought by a group of authors and Universal Music dropped its copyright claims against AI startup Udio as part of a strategic deal to launch an AI music making platform.

Getty loses UK copyright battle against Stability AI

Experts disagree about what the ruling means for AI training on copyrighted material London's High Court has dismissed the major portions of Getty Images' lawsuit against generative AI firm Stability AI for training its image-generation model on copyrighted images, which some legal experts say could weaken intellectual property laws. However, others saw daylight for trademark and copyright protection in the judge's ruling. The High Court of Justice handed down its decision on Tuesday. Justice Joanna Smith affirmed just a portion of one of several arguments that Getty made in the lawsuit it filed in 2023, namely that the presence of Getty watermarks on certain images generated by Stability's Stable Diffusion models constituted trademark infringement. As for everything else, Smith found Getty failed to prove its claims. Getty sued Stability for copyright infringement in part because those watermarks showed up in AI-generated images, which the photo agency argued was clear evidence that London-based Stability had scraped its massive library of photographs to train its AI models. But Getty couldn't prove that any of that training had taken place in the UK, forcing it to drop its more general claim of copyright infringement in the middle of the trial. "Getty Images may be able to maintain such a case in the jurisdiction where the Model was in fact trained, but there is no basis for that case in this jurisdiction," Smith wrote in her decision. Getty did try to make a case of secondary infringement - that is, arguing that even if the training took place elsewhere, importing infringing content was still illegal. But Smith dismissed that claim as well. Because generative models like Stable Diffusion don't store actual copies of the content they're trained on, instead recording the weights, secondary infringement doesn't apply, Smith explained. "While it is true that the model weights are altered during training by exposure to Copyright Works, by the end of that process the Model itself does not store any of those Copyright Works; the model weights are not themselves an infringing copy and they do not store an infringing copy," Smith wrote. Given the high profile of the case, both Getty and Stability claimed victory. Stability told The Register in an email that the ruling "ultimately resolves the copyright concerns that were the core issue," even though Getty dropped some of its claims during the trial. Getty, for its part, said Smith's decision rejected Stability's argument that individual users should be held liable for the production of infringements like Getty watermarks, "confirming that responsibility for the presence of such trademarks lies with the model provider." The image publisher also declared victory on copyright despite its loss on a jurisdictional technicality, saying the court had confirmed that "wherever the training and development did take place, Getty Images' copyright‑protected works were used to train Stable Diffusion." Getty said it would make that argument in the United States, where it has also sued Stability on similar grounds. Getty voluntarily dismissed its lawsuit filed in Delaware District Court against Stability in August, but filed a separate action in California. Intellectual property lawyers have been coming out of the woodwork to weigh in on the case, as, in the words of Freeths partner and head of IP law Simon Barker, the Getty v. Stability case "is likely to influence both future litigation and policy debates on AI and intellectual property, not just in the UK but internationally." Barker told us that the case was an interesting one that tested the collision of AI and IP, and did make it clear that AI-generated outputs reproducing protected trademarks will be a liability going forward. "Each case will turn on its own facts and rights holders will need to evidence a likelihood of confusion or association with the relevant trade mark to succeed," Barker added. Michelmores IP partner Iain Connor, on the other hand, described the case as a "massive damp squib" because Getty dropped its most important claim, giving Smith "no opportunity to rule in general terms on the lawfulness of AI's use of copyright protected 'input materials' and whether an AI model's 'output' infringed such copyrights." "The decision leaves the UK without a meaningful verdict on the lawfulness of an AI model's process of learning from copyright materials," Connor told us in an emailed statement. "The case does nothing to answer the 'big tech vs creative industries' argument." Rebecca Newman, legal director at law firm Addleshaw Goddard, had a far more pessimistic take for intellectual property holders, arguing that the case sets a bad precedent in the United Kingdom as a whole. "Despite the protection UK copyright purports to offer, Stability have got away with exploiting authorial works for their huge value in training model weights," Newman told us. "The texture of the end product should be irrelevant - extracting value from protected works is an act reserved to the copyright owner." Newman added that the court's decision in the Getty v. Stability case avoided having to rule on the copyright holders' rights on a technicality that has considerable implications. "In practice, models trained on infringing data outside of the UK can be imported into the UK without legal repercussions," Newman said. "The UK's secondary copyright regime is not strong enough to protect its creators." The implications of the ruling will next be tested in California as Getty brings its case against Stability to the US. A jury trial has been demanded in the California case, but a date has not been set. ®

Creative groups fail to secure UK legal precedent in Getty AI copyright case

Creative groups hoping to secure a legal breakthrough against artificial intelligence groups scraping their content have been left disappointed after Getty Images lost a central plank of a UK copyright lawsuit against Stability AI. In a nuanced ruling on Tuesday, the High Court in London largely sided with Stability AI after Getty claimed it infringed the photo agency's intellectual property with its AI image-generation model, Stable Diffusion. "An AI model such as Stable Diffusion which does not store or reproduce any Copyright Works (and has never done so) is not an 'infringing copy'," Mrs Justice Joanna Smith said in her ruling. The case is among dozens of copyright lawsuits that have been filed against technology groups around the world over the data used to train the large language models behind their popular AI chatbots. But lawyers on Tuesday said the case failed to give a definitive ruling on whether training AI models using copyrighted works breached intellectual property law after Getty abandoned important parts of its case towards the end of the London trial this year. Seattle-based Getty dropped its original copyright claim as there was no evidence that training and development of Stable Diffusion took place in the UK. It chose to pursue a narrower case for so-called secondary infringement. Iain Connor, intellectual property partner at law firm Michelmores, said the highly anticipated case had turned out to be a "massive damp squib". "The decision leaves the UK without a meaningful verdict on the lawfulness of an AI model's process of learning from copyright materials," he added. The case was being watched closely by media groups and lawyers in the UK, as creators seek greater financial rights when their works are used to train AI models that may disrupt their livelihoods. Nick Eziefula, partner at law firm Simkins, said the decision "will frustrate many in the creative industries". The London ruling comes following a flurry of recent copyright cases in the US that have been seen as a win for AI groups. In June Meta won a US copyright case after a federal court found that its use of millions of books to train its AI models without writers' consent was "fair use". Anthropic won a similar case that same month. Getty's US-listed shares fell about 5 per cent in early trading in New York following the ruling. The photo agency group, which provides a wide range of editorial, creative and commercial images, did secure a win on unauthorised use of its commercial identity. The court found that Stability AI, whose Stable Diffusion model can generate images from user commands, was responsible for some images generated by its systems that included Getty watermarks. Getty is also pursuing legal action against Stability AI in the US. The company said the ruling "confirms that Stable Diffusion's inclusion of Getty Images' trademarks in AI-generated outputs infringed those trademarks", adding that it would be "taking forward findings of fact from the UK ruling in our US case". Christian Dowell, general counsel for Stability AI, said in a statement that the company was "pleased" with the ruling. "We are grateful for the time and effort the court has put forth to resolve the important questions in this case," he added. Robert Guthrie, partner in IP disputes at law firm Osborne Clarke, said the judgment was "a big win for Stability AI and AI developers generally". "The finding that Stable Diffusion does not store or reproduce any copyright works will give encouragement to AI developers that AI models trained on third party copyright protected works do not infringe copyright in the UK," he said. Catriona MacLeod Stevenson, general counsel and deputy chief executive of the Publishers Association, said the Getty case was "not the end of the road" for UK creators and rights holders. She added that the judgment was "hugely limited in scope" and "does not rule at all on the critical question of whether the training, development and operation of an LLM amounts to primary infringement of copyright in the UK".

UK High Court sides with Stability AI over Getty in copyright case

A judge ruled in Stability's favor despite finding some evidence of copyright infringement. Stability AI has partially succeeded in defending itself against accusations of copyright infringement. As reported by The Guardian, Stability AI prevailed in a high-profile UK High Court case, following Getty first suing the company in 2023 for allegedly using its copyright images to train its Stable Diffusion AI art tool without permission. Getty's original claim was that Stability AI had unlawfully copied and processed millions of protected images for training purposes, therefore abusing the rights of the original creators. However, the Seattle-based company eventually withdrew its claims of primary copyright infringement as it reportedly could offer no evidence that unauthorized copying for the training of Stable Diffusion had taken place in the UK. Today's ruling concerns claims of secondary infringement, to which the High Court judge, Justice Joanna Smith, ruled that "an AI model such as Stable Diffusion which does not store or reproduce any copyright works (and has never done so) is not an 'infringing copy'" under UK law. This was despite the ruling finding some evidence of Getty's images being used by Stability, as evidenced by the presence of the former's watermark. While the judge sided with Getty on some of its claims, she said that the evidence was "both historic and extremely limited in scope." The High Court ruling likely won't fill companies and creators concerned about AI-related copyright infringement with a huge amount of optimism, but unsurprisingly, both Getty and Stability AI have been quick to celebrate their respective victories. Getty's statement reads, in part: The company added that it was "deeply concerned" that even "well-resourced companies" remain at risk of infringement due to a "lack of transparent requirements." It also urged the UK government to build on the current laws around this issue. Christian Dowell, general counsel to Stability AI, said the final ruling from the court "ultimately resolves the copyright concerns that were the core issue." The ruling comes just days after Getty announced a new agreement with Perplexity AI that permits the latter to access Getty's huge media library as part of its search and discovery tools. In a press release, Getty said a condition of the licensing deal was Perplexity committing to "making improvements on how it displays imagery, including image credit with link to source, to better educate users on how to use licensed imagery legally."

Stability AI largely wins UK court battle against Getty Images over copyright and trademark

LONDON (AP) -- Artificial intelligence company Stability AI mostly prevailed against Getty Images Tuesday in a British court battle over intellectual property. Seattle-based Getty Images, which owns an extensive online library of images and video, had filed suit against Stability AI in a widely watched case that went to trial at Britain's High Court in June. The case was among a wave of lawsuits filed by movie studios, authors and artists challenging tech companies' use of their works to train AI chatbots. According to a judge's ruling released Tuesday, Getty narrowly won its argument that Stability had infringed its trademark, but lost its claim for secondary infringement of copyright. Both sides claimed victory. "This is a significant win for intellectual property owners," Getty Images said in a statement. Shares of Getty dipped 3% before the opening bell in the U.S. Stability said it was pleased with the ruling. "This final ruling ultimately resolves the copyright concerns that were the core issue," Stability General Counsel Christian Dowell said. Getty argued that the development of Stability's AI image maker, called Stable Diffusion, was a "brazen infringement" of its library of images "on a staggering scale." While Getty accused Stability of infringing both its copyright and trademark, the company dropped its primary copyright allegations during the trial, indicating that it didn't think its arguments would succeed. Getty also sued for trademark infringement because its watermark appeared on some of the images generated by Stability's chatbot. Justice Joanna Smith said in her ruling that Getty's trademark claims "succeed (in part)" but that her findings are "both historic and extremely limited in scope." Stability argued that the case doesn't belong in the United Kingdom because the AI model's training technically happened elsewhere, on computers run by U.S. tech giant Amazon. It also argued that "only a tiny proportion" of the random outputs of its AI image-generator "look at all similar" to Getty's works. Tech companies have long argued that "fair use" or "fair dealing" legal doctrines in the United States and United Kingdom allow them to train their AI systems on large troves of writings or images. Getty is also still pursuing a claim of "secondary infringement" of copyright, saying that even if Stability's AI training happened outside the U.K., offering the Stable Diffusion service to British users amounted to importing unlawful copies of its images into the country. Smith dismissed Getty's argument, saying that Stable Diffusion's AI didn't infringe copyright because it doesn't store "store or reproduce any Copyright Works (and has never done so)." Getty is also pursuing a copyright infringement lawsuit in the United States against Stability. It originally sued Getty in 2023 but refiled the case in a San Francisco federal court in August. The Getty lawsuits are among a slew of cases that highlight how the generative AI boom is fueling a clash between tech companies and creative industries. Anthropic agreed to pay $1.5 billion to settle a class-action lawsuit by book authors who say the company took pirated copies of their works to train its Claude chatbot. Separately, a federal judge dismissed a lawsuit from a group of 13 authors who made similar accusations against Facebook owner Meta Platforms in training its AI system Llama. Warner Bros. has sued Midjourney for copyright infringement, alleging that its image generator enables subscribers to create AI-generated images and videos of copyrighted characters like Superman and Bugs Bunny. Disney and Universal also sued Midjourney earlier in a separate, joint copyright lawsuit, alleging the San Francisco-based startup pirated the libraries to generate and distribute unauthorized copies of famed characters like Darth Vader and the Minions. ___ AP Technology Writer Matt O'Brien contributed to this report.

Getty Images Mostly Loses its Legal Battle Against Stability AI

A court in London has largely sided with Stability AI in its legal battle with Getty Images, marking a significant ruling in the ongoing debate over how copyright laws apply to generative AI. Seattle-based Getty Images, one of the largest photo agencies in the world, sued Stability AI in the UK's High Court, alleging that its AI model, Stable Diffusion, had used millions of Getty's copyrighted images without permission. The case, one of several worldwide involving AI firms and creative rights holders, was closely watched for its potential to define how copyright applies to AI training data. Today, AP is reporting that Justice Joanna Smith ruled that Getty succeeded only "in part" on its trademark infringement claim but dismissed its argument that Stability had committed secondary copyright infringement. She described her findings as "both historic and extremely limited in scope." The decision effectively concludes that Stable Diffusion "does not store or reproduce any copyright works (and has never done so)," and therefore did not infringe copyright. Getty had originally accused Stability of "brazen infringement" on "a staggering scale," arguing that the company had copied and scraped its image library to train its AI model. But during the trial, Getty dropped the central copyright claim after acknowledging that the model's training occurred outside the UK, reportedly on servers operated by Amazon. Without proof that the activity took place in Britain, the court could not rule on whether the AI's training violated UK copyright law. Despite the setback, Getty says the ruling represents progress for rights holders. "This is a significant win for intellectual property owners," the company says in a statement. It adds that the decision "confirms that Stable Diffusion's inclusion of Getty Images' trademarks in AI-generated outputs infringed those trademarks." Getty also called for governments to strengthen transparency rules to help creators protect their work, warning that even "well-resourced companies such as Getty Images face significant challenges in protecting their creative works." "We are pleased with the court's ruling on the remaining claims in this case," says Christian Dowell, Stability AI's general counsel. "This final ruling ultimately resolves the copyright concerns that were the core issue." Rebecca Newman, a legal director at Addleshaw Goddard, tells The Guardian that the judgment shows "the UK's secondary copyright regime is not strong enough to protect its creators." Another lawyer, Iain Connor of Michelmores, tells Reuters that the withdrawal of Getty's main claims "leaves the UK without a meaningful verdict on the lawfulness of an AI model's process of learning from copyright materials." Getty is continuing to pursue related legal action against Stability AI in the United States, where it refiled its lawsuit in a San Francisco federal court in August. The UK ruling, meanwhile, leaves unresolved one of the most contentious questions in modern copyright law: whether training AI systems on copyrighted material constitutes infringement.

AI firm wins high court ruling after photo agency's copyright claim

Ruling in case brought by Getty Images against Stability AI is seen as a blow to copyright owners A London-based artificial intelligence firm has won a landmark high court case examining the legality of AI models using vast troves of copyrighted data without permission. Stability AI, whose directors include the Oscar-winning film-maker behind Avatar, James Cameron, successfully resisted a claim from Getty Images that it had infringed the international photo agency's copyright. The ruling is seen as a blow to copyright owners' exclusive right to reap the rewards of their work, with one senior lawyer, Rebecca Newman, a legal director at Addleshaw Goddard, warning it means "the UK's secondary copyright regime is not strong enough to protect its creators". There was evidence that Getty's images were used to train Stability's model, which allows users to generate images with text prompts. Stability was also found to have infringed Getty's trademarks in some cases. The judge, Mrs Justice Joanna Smith, said the question of where to strike the balance between the interests of the creative industries on one side and the AI industry on the other was "of very real societal importance". But she was only able to rule on relatively narrow claims after Getty had to withdraw parts of its case during the trial this summer. Getty Images sued Stability AI for infringement of its intellectual property, alleging the AI company was "completely indifferent to what they fed into the training data" and scraped and copied millions of its images. It had to drop its original copyright claim as there was no evidence the training took place in the UK. But it continued with its suit claiming Stability was still using within its systems copies of its visual assets, which it called the "lifeblood" of its business. It claimed Stability AI had infringed its trademarks because some AI-generated images included Getty watermarks, and that it was guilty of "passing off". In a sign of the complexity of AI copyright cases, it essentially argued that Stability's image-generation model, called Stable Diffusion, amounted to an infringing copy because its making would have constituted copyright infringement had it been carried out in the UK. The judge ruled: "An AI model such as Stable Diffusion which does not store or reproduce any copyright works (and has never done so) is not an 'infringing copy'." She declined to rule on the passing off claim and ruled in favour of some of Getty's claims about trademark infringement related to watermarks. In a statement, Getty Images said: "We remain deeply concerned that even well-resourced companies such as Getty Images face significant challenges in protecting their creative works given the lack of transparency requirements. We invested millions of pounds to reach this point with only one provider that we need to continue to pursue in another venue. "We urge governments, including the UK, to establish stronger transparency rules, which are essential to prevent costly legal battles and to allow creators to protect their rights." Christian Dowell, the general counsel for Stability AI, said: "We are pleased with the court's ruling on the remaining claims in this case. Getty's decision to voluntarily dismiss most of its copyright claims at the conclusion of trial testimony left only a subset of claims before the court, and this final ruling ultimately resolves the copyright concerns that were the core issue. We are grateful for the time and effort the court has put forth to resolve the important questions in this case." The judgment comes amid a row over how the Labour government should legislate on the issue of copyright and AI, with artists and authors including Elton John, Kate Bush, Dua Lipa and Kazuo Ishiguro lobbying for protection. Meanwhile, tech companies are calling for wide access to copyrighted content to allow them to build the most powerful and effective generative AI systems. The government is consulting on copyright and AI and has said: "Uncertainty over how our copyright framework operates is holding back growth for our AI and creative industries. That cannot continue." It is looking at whether to introduce a "text and data mining exception" into UK copyright law, which would allow copyright works to be used to train AI models in the UK unless the rights holder opts their works out of such training, said lawyers at Mishcon de Reya who have been following the issue.

Getty Images largely loses lawsuit against UK AI firm

US media company Getty Images largely lost a case it brought against a British AI firm over use of its copyrighted content without permission, a court in London said on Tuesday. Getty had alleged that London-based Stability AI, whose directors include Canadian filmmaker James Cameron, "extracted millions" of images from Getty's websites "without consent" to unlawfully train its deep learning AI model, Stable Diffusion. The model can generate images using verbal commands. Stability AI rejected the claim, telling a High Court trial which began in June, that the legal action was a "threat" to the business. Getty, which distributes stock and news photos and videos, including AFP photos, dropped its allegations of breach of copyright during the trial but continued to pursue several other claims, including trademark infringement and secondary infringement of copyright. Getty acknowledged that there was "no evidence that the training and development of Stable Diffusion took place in the United Kingdom," judge Joanna Smith said in a 205-page ruling on Tuesday. "This court can only determine the issues that arise on the (diminished) case that remains before it," her ruling said. Stability AI was found responsible for producing images on which the watermark "Getty" or the subsidiary name "iStock" appeared, a partial win in its trademark infringement claim. "In summary, although Getty Images succeed (in part) in their Trade Mark Infringement Claim, my findings are both historic and extremely limited in scope," Smith also wrote. The ruling is likely to be seen as a blow for content creators and copyright owners globally at a time of unease over how they can be fairly compensated should AI models use their work. "We remain deeply concerned that even well-funded companies like Getty Images face significant challenges in protecting their works," Getty said in a statement. "We call on governments, including the United Kingdom, to establish stricter transparency rules." Christian Dowell, general counsel for Stability AI, said the company was "pleased" with the court's ruling. "Getty's decision to voluntarily dismiss most of its copyright claims at the conclusion of trial testimony left only a subset of claims before the court, and this final ruling ultimately resolves the copyright concerns that were the core issue," he said in a statement.

Getty loses major UK copyright lawsuit against Stability AI

The lawsuit's conclusion has raised concerns around the strength of secondary copyright in the UK. The London High Court has dismissed major portions of a Getty copyright lawsuit against UK start-up Stability AI, with some experts believing it could reshape how the law understands artificial intelligence technology. In its 2023 lawsuit, Getty claimed that the AI-start-up "unlawfully copied and processed millions of images protected by copyright" from its photo archive, infringing on its intellectual property rights. It argued that these images were used to train Stability's 'Stable Diffusion' model which produces photorealistic images from text and image prompts. However, many of these initial claims were abandoned during trial, and those that remained dealt with secondary infringement and trademark issues. Getty argued that Stability had imported its work into the UK without permission by allowing some Stable Diffusion model weights to be downloaded via Hugging Face. Additionally, it claimed that the start-up had infringed on its trademark rights after it identified watermark-like features in some of Stability's generative AI (GenAI) outputs through its own experiments. In yesterday's (4 November) ruling, the court agreed that there was evidence that Getty's images were used to train Stability's models, and that the company infringed on Getty's trademarks in some cases. Evidence, however, showed that Stability's stable diffusion model weights did not contain copies of Getty's copyrighted works. This meant that Stability had not actually imported Getty's work into the UK. In addition, Stability argued that Getty had been unable to prove that any UK user of its Stable Diffusion models had generated an AI output that consisted its watermarks. The judge sided with Stability in these arguments, throwing out both the secondary infringement claim, as well as the agreeing that no evidence has been shown that a UK user had generated a watermark in their synthetic output. Justice Joanna Smith ruled, "An AI model such as Stable Diffusion which does not store or reproduce any copyright works (and has never done so) is not an 'infringing copy'." Dr Barry Scannell from William Fry LLP commented that the conclusion has "implications far beyond copyright", explaining that it could potentially collide with the European Data Protection Board's opinion on personal data in AI models, which believes an AI model to be anonymous only if the "the likelihood, either direct or probabilistic, of extracting personal data" is insignificant. Meanwhile, Rebecca Newman, a legal director at Addleshaw Goddard, said that the judgement could mean that "the UK's secondary copyright regime is not strong enough to protect its creators". In a statement, Getty Images said: "We remain deeply concerned that even well-resourced companies such as Getty Images face significant challenges in protecting their creative works given the lack of transparency requirements. "We invested millions of pounds to reach this point with only one provider that we need to continue to pursue in another venue. We urge governments, including the UK, to establish stronger transparency rules, which are essential to prevent costly legal battles and to allow creators to protect their rights." Stability AI's counsel, in a statement to the press said, "Getty's decision to voluntarily dismiss most of its copyright claims at the conclusion of trial testimony left only a subset of claims before the court, and this final ruling ultimately resolves the copyright concerns that were the core issue." Getty's loss comes after the UK competition watchdog began an in-depth investigation into the company's proposed multibillion-pound merger with Shutterstock. Meanwhile, the AI web browser Perplexity announced a multi-year partnership with Getty last week to display its content across Perplexity's AI search tools. The deal is seen as a way to "better educate users on how to use licensed imagery legally", a company press release read. Don't miss out on the knowledge you need to succeed. Sign up for the Daily Brief, Silicon Republic's digest of need-to-know sci-tech news.

UK court mostly sides with Stability AI in AI copyright lawsuit - SiliconANGLE

UK court mostly sides with Stability AI in AI copyright lawsuit A UK court has mostly sided with Stability AI Ltd. in a case that focused on the startup's use of copyrighted images to train artificial intelligence models. The High Court of Justice issued the ruling today. London-based Stability AI is an AI model developer backed by more than $170 million in funding. The company is best known for creating Stable Diffusion, a series of open-source text-to-image models. The algorithm family was the focus of the case in which today's ruling was issued. In early 2023, stock photo provider Getty Images Holdings Inc. sued Stability AI for copyright infringement. The complaint charged that the AI provider broke the law by using millions of photos from the Getty Images database to train its Stable Diffusion models. Some of the photos in question are owned by Getty Images, while others are distributed through its platform under an exclusive license. The court dismissed the copyright infringement argument on the grounds that Stability AI didn't train its models in the UK. "Getty Images may be able to maintain such a case in the jurisdiction where the Model was in fact trained, but there is no basis for that case in this jurisdiction," Justice Joanna Smith wrote in the ruling. Getty Images also accused Stability AI of secondary copyright infringement. The allegation rested on the argument that the Stable Diffusion models' development would have constituted copyright infringement had it been carried out in the UK. That argument also failed to convince the court. Justice Smith dismissed the allegation on the grounds that a model trained on copyrighted images is not a copy of those images. "While it is true that the model weights are altered during training by exposure to Copyright Works, by the end of that process the Model itself does not store any of those Copyright Works; the model weights are not themselves an infringing copy and they do not store an infringing copy," Smith wrote. The court did rule in favor of Getty Image on the third major point raised by the case. The argument focused on the fact that the images in the company's library contain watermarks. Those watermarks display the logo of either Getty or a subsidiary such as its iStock stock photo unit. In some cases, the images that users generate with Stable Diffusion models contain the iStock watermark. Getty successfully argued that this phenomenon amounts to trademark infringement. The court rejected Stability AI's claim that such trademark infringements are the responsibility of a model's users and not the model developer. The AI provider nevertheless welcomed the decision. "We are pleased with the court's ruling on the remaining claims in this case," Stability AI said in a statement. "Getty's decision to voluntarily dismiss most of its copyright claims at the conclusion of trial testimony left only a subset of claims before the court, and this final ruling ultimately resolves the copyright concerns that were the core issue." Getty Images, meanwhile, stated that it plans to carry over the findings from the case to a similar lawsuit it's pursuing against Stability AI in the U.S. Shares of the stock photography provider closed 9.1% lower on the ruling. The decision comes two months after Anthropic PBC paid $1.5 billion to end a class-action lawsuit filed over its Claude large language models. A group of authors argued that the company incorporated copyrighted books into its training dataset without permission.

Stability AI largely wins U.K. court battle against Getty Images

Seattle-based Getty had accused Stability AI of infringing its copyright and trademark by scraping 12 million images from its website, without permission, to train its popular image generator, Stable Diffusion. The closely followed case at Britain's High Court was among the first in a wave of lawsuits involving generative AI as movie studios, authors, and artists challenged tech companies' use of their works to train AI chatbots. Tech companies have long argued that "fair use" or "fair dealing" legal doctrines in the United States and United Kingdom allow them to train their AI systems on large troves of writings or images. Tuesday's ruling provides some clarity but still leaves big unanswered questions over copyright and AI, experts said.

Stability AI largely wins court battle against Getty Images over copyright, trademark

LONDON -- Artificial intelligence company Stability AI mostly prevailed against Getty Images Tuesday in a British court battle over intellectual property. Seattle-based Getty Images, which owns an extensive online library of images and video, had filed suit against Stability AI in a widely watched case that went to trial at Britain's High Court in June. The case was among a wave of lawsuits filed by movie studios, authors and artists challenging tech companies' use of their works to train AI chatbots. According to a judge's ruling released Tuesday, Getty narrowly won its argument that Stability had infringed its trademark, but lost its claim for secondary infringement of copyright. Both sides claimed victory. "This is a significant win for intellectual property owners," Getty Images said in a statement. Shares of Getty dipped 3% before the opening bell in the U.S. Stability said it was pleased with the ruling. "This final ruling ultimately resolves the copyright concerns that were the core issue," Stability General Counsel Christian Dowell said. Getty argued that the development of Stability's AI image maker, called Stable Diffusion, was a "brazen infringement" of its library of images "on a staggering scale." While Getty accused Stability of infringing both its copyright and trademark, the company dropped its primary copyright allegations during the trial, indicating that it didn't think its arguments would succeed. Getty also sued for trademark infringement because its watermark appeared on some of the images generated by Stability's chatbot. Justice Joanna Smith said in her ruling that Getty's trademark claims "succeed (in part)" but that her findings are "both historic and extremely limited in scope." Stability argued that the case doesn't belong in the United Kingdom because the AI model's training technically happened elsewhere, on computers run by U.S. tech giant Amazon. It also argued that "only a tiny proportion" of the random outputs of its AI image-generator "look at all similar" to Getty's works. Tech companies have long argued that "fair use" or "fair dealing" legal doctrines in the United States and United Kingdom allow them to train their AI systems on large troves of writings or images. Getty is also still pursuing a claim of "secondary infringement" of copyright, saying that even if Stability's AI training happened outside the U.K., offering the Stable Diffusion service to British users amounted to importing unlawful copies of its images into the country. Smith dismissed Getty's argument, saying that Stable Diffusion's AI didn't infringe copyright because it doesn't store "store or reproduce any Copyright Works (and has never done so)." Getty is also pursuing a copyright infringement lawsuit in the United States against Stability. It originally sued Getty in 2023 but refiled the case in a San Francisco federal court in August. The Getty lawsuits are among a slew of cases that highlight how the generative AI boom is fueling a clash between tech companies and creative industries. Anthropic agreed to pay $1.5 billion to settle a class-action lawsuit by book authors who say the company took pirated copies of their works to train its Claude chatbot. Separately, a federal judge dismissed a lawsuit from a group of 13 authors who made similar accusations against Facebook owner Meta Platforms in training its AI system Llama. Warner Bros. has sued Midjourney for copyright infringement, alleging that its image generator enables subscribers to create AI-generated images and videos of copyrighted characters like Superman and Bugs Bunny. Disney and Universal also sued Midjourney earlier in a separate, joint copyright lawsuit, alleging the San Francisco-based startup pirated the libraries to generate and distribute unauthorized copies of famed characters like Darth Vader and the Minions. ___ AP Technology Writer Matt O'Brien contributed to this report.

Stability AI largely wins UK court battle against Getty Images over copyright and trademark

LONDON (AP) -- Artificial intelligence company Stability AI mostly prevailed against Getty Images Tuesday in a British court battle over intellectual property. Seattle-based Getty Images, which owns an extensive online library of images and video, had filed suit against Stability AI in a widely watched case that went to trial at Britain's High Court in June. The case was among a wave of lawsuits filed by movie studios, authors and artists challenging tech companies' use of their works to train AI chatbots. According to a judge's ruling released Tuesday, Getty narrowly won its argument that Stability had infringed its trademark, but lost its claim for secondary infringement of copyright. Both sides claimed victory. "This is a significant win for intellectual property owners," Getty Images said in a statement. Shares of Getty dipped 3% before the opening bell in the U.S. Stability said it was pleased with the ruling. "This final ruling ultimately resolves the copyright concerns that were the core issue," Stability General Counsel Christian Dowell said. Getty argued that the development of Stability's AI image maker, called Stable Diffusion, was a "brazen infringement" of its library of images "on a staggering scale." While Getty accused Stability of infringing both its copyright and trademark, the company dropped its primary copyright allegations during the trial, indicating that it didn't think its arguments would succeed. Getty also sued for trademark infringement because its watermark appeared on some of the images generated by Stability's chatbot. Justice Joanna Smith said in her ruling that Getty's trademark claims "succeed (in part)" but that her findings are "both historic and extremely limited in scope." Stability argued that the case doesn't belong in the United Kingdom because the AI model's training technically happened elsewhere, on computers run by U.S. tech giant Amazon. It also argued that "only a tiny proportion" of the random outputs of its AI image-generator "look at all similar" to Getty's works. Tech companies have long argued that "fair use" or "fair dealing" legal doctrines in the United States and United Kingdom allow them to train their AI systems on large troves of writings or images. Getty is also still pursuing a claim of "secondary infringement" of copyright, saying that even if Stability's AI training happened outside the U.K., offering the Stable Diffusion service to British users amounted to importing unlawful copies of its images into the country. Smith dismissed Getty's argument, saying that Stable Diffusion's AI didn't infringe copyright because it doesn't store "store or reproduce any Copyright Works (and has never done so)." Getty is also pursuing a copyright infringement lawsuit in the United States against Stability. It originally sued Getty in 2023 but refiled the case in a San Francisco federal court in August. The Getty lawsuits are among a slew of cases that highlight how the generative AI boom is fueling a clash between tech companies and creative industries. Anthropic agreed to pay $1.5 billion to settle a class-action lawsuit by book authors who say the company took pirated copies of their works to train its Claude chatbot. Separately, a federal judge dismissed a lawsuit from a group of 13 authors who made similar accusations against Facebook owner Meta Platforms in training its AI system Llama. Warner Bros. has sued Midjourney for copyright infringement, alleging that its image generator enables subscribers to create AI-generated images and videos of copyrighted characters like Superman and Bugs Bunny. Disney and Universal also sued Midjourney earlier in a separate, joint copyright lawsuit, alleging the San Francisco-based startup pirated the libraries to generate and distribute unauthorized copies of famed characters like Darth Vader and the Minions. ___ AP Technology Writer Matt O'Brien contributed to this report.

Stability AI Largely Wins UK Court Battle Against Getty Images Over Copyright and Trademark

LONDON (AP) -- Artificial intelligence company Stability AI mostly prevailed against Getty Images Tuesday in a British court battle over intellectual property. Seattle-based Getty Images, which owns an extensive online library of images and video, had filed suit against Stability AI in a widely watched case that went to trial at Britain's High Court in June. The case was among a wave of lawsuits filed by movie studios, authors and artists challenging tech companies' use of their works to train AI chatbots. According to a judge's ruling released Tuesday, Getty narrowly won its argument that Stability had infringed its trademark, but lost its claim for secondary infringement of copyright. Both sides claimed victory. "This is a significant win for intellectual property owners," Getty Images said in a statement. Shares of Getty dipped 3% before the opening bell in the U.S. Stability said it was pleased with the ruling. "This final ruling ultimately resolves the copyright concerns that were the core issue," Stability General Counsel Christian Dowell said. Getty argued that the development of Stability's AI image maker, called Stable Diffusion, was a "brazen infringement" of its library of images "on a staggering scale." While Getty accused Stability of infringing both its copyright and trademark, the company dropped its primary copyright allegations during the trial, indicating that it didn't think its arguments would succeed. Getty also sued for trademark infringement because its watermark appeared on some of the images generated by Stability's chatbot. Justice Joanna Smith said in her ruling that Getty's trademark claims "succeed (in part)" but that her findings are "both historic and extremely limited in scope." Stability argued that the case doesn't belong in the United Kingdom because the AI model's training technically happened elsewhere, on computers run by U.S. tech giant Amazon. It also argued that "only a tiny proportion" of the random outputs of its AI image-generator "look at all similar" to Getty's works. Tech companies have long argued that "fair use" or "fair dealing" legal doctrines in the United States and United Kingdom allow them to train their AI systems on large troves of writings or images. Getty is also still pursuing a claim of "secondary infringement" of copyright, saying that even if Stability's AI training happened outside the U.K., offering the Stable Diffusion service to British users amounted to importing unlawful copies of its images into the country. Smith dismissed Getty's argument, saying that Stable Diffusion's AI didn't infringe copyright because it doesn't store "store or reproduce any Copyright Works (and has never done so)." Getty is also pursuing a copyright infringement lawsuit in the United States against Stability. It originally sued Getty in 2023 but refiled the case in a San Francisco federal court in August. The Getty lawsuits are among a slew of cases that highlight how the generative AI boom is fueling a clash between tech companies and creative industries. Anthropic agreed to pay $1.5 billion to settle a class-action lawsuit by book authors who say the company took pirated copies of their works to train its Claude chatbot. Separately, a federal judge dismissed a lawsuit from a group of 13 authors who made similar accusations against Facebook owner Meta Platforms in training its AI system Llama. Warner Bros. has sued Midjourney for copyright infringement, alleging that its image generator enables subscribers to create AI-generated images and videos of copyrighted characters like Superman and Bugs Bunny. Disney and Universal also sued Midjourney earlier in a separate, joint copyright lawsuit, alleging the San Francisco-based startup pirated the libraries to generate and distribute unauthorized copies of famed characters like Darth Vader and the Minions. ___ AP Technology Writer Matt O'Brien contributed to this report.

Getty Images largely loses landmark UK lawsuit over AI image generator

Getty Images largely lost its copyright lawsuit against Stability AI over its image generator. While Getty partially succeeded on trademark infringement, the court dismissed its secondary copyright infringement claim. The ruling's scope is considered limited due to evidence gaps regarding AI training data. Getty Images largely lost its landmark lawsuit against artificial intelligence company Stability AI over its image generator at London's High Court on Tuesday. Seattle-based Getty, which produces editorial content and creative stock images and video, accused Stability AI of using its images to "train" its Stable Diffusion system, which can generate images from text inputs. The company had sued Stability AI for breach of copyright on the grounds Stable Diffusion was trained using Getty's images, and that images generated by Stable Diffusion reproduced its copyrighted images. But Getty dropped that part of its case mid-trial, partly due to a lack of evidence about where Stable Diffusion was "trained", which intellectual property lawyers said could limit the wider significance of Tuesday's ruling for the law on AI. Getty's claims of trademark infringement and for secondary copyright infringement, alleging that Stability AI imported into the United Kingdom an AI model which breached its copyright remained live ahead of the court's decision. Judge Joanna Smith said in a written ruling that Getty had succeeded "in part" on trademark infringement, but that her findings were "both historic and extremely limited in scope". She also dismissed Getty's secondary copyright infringement claim. The company's shares were seen down 6.6% in premarket trading following the ruling. (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel)

The Getty vs Stability AI ruling is a blow to artists

While many artists see the training of AI image generators using unlicensed work as theft, but the UK High Court has just decided otherwise, and the case could influence future rulings and public policy. Getty Images sued the AI developer Stability AI, claiming that it had committed secondary copy infringement by training the Stable Diffusion AI image model on millions of images taken from Getty's stock photo library. However, Judge Joanna Smith has mainly ruled in favour of Stability AI. Although there was evidence that photos from Getty were used to train Stability's model (Getty watermarks turned up on AI-generated images), the judge ruled that training an AI model on copyrighted works, without storing or reproducing those works in the model itself, does not amount to secondary copyright infringement under UK law. The judge ruled: "An AI model such as Stable Diffusion which does not store or reproduce any copyright works (and has never done so) is not an 'infringing copy'." She did, however, take Getty's side in certain claims about trademark infringement related to its watermarks, raising the possibility that AI developers could be sued if models clearly reproduce trademarks. Simon Barker, Partner and Head of Intellectual Property at law firm Freeths, said the judgment strikes a balance between protecting the interests of creative industries and enabling technological innovation. "AI developers can take some comfort from the case that the mere act of training on large datasets will not of itself expose them to liability for copyright infringement in the UK," he said. "However, the judgment also serves as a warning that if AI-generated outputs reproduce protected trade marks, for example where they appear as watermarks, in a way that could confuse people then they will risk infringing those trade marks. Each case will turn on its own facts and rights holders will need to evidence a likelihood of confusion or association with the relevant trade mark to succeed." That doesn't seem to leave a lot of hope for artists. Rebecca Newman, a legal director at Addleshaw Goddard, has warned that the ruling is a blow to copyright owners' exclusive right to profit from their work and means "the UK's secondary copyright regime is not strong enough to protect its creators". Some questions remain unaddressed, though. Getty withdrew part of its lawsuit relating to primary copyright infringement because Stability AI argued that its AI training had not happened in Britain. The company still has another case against Stability AI pending in the US. There are other issues around copyright with AI imagery too. So far, it's been ruled that AI-generated images can't be copyrighted themselves because they lack human authorship. In a statement, Getty Images said: "We remain deeply concerned that even well-resourced companies such as Getty Images face significant challenges in protecting their creative works given the lack of transparency requirements. We invested millions of pounds to reach this point with only one provider that we need to continue to pursue in another venue. "We urge governments, including the UK, to establish stronger transparency rules, which are essential to prevent costly legal battles and to allow creators to protect their rights."

Stability AI largely wins U.K. court battle against Getty Images over copyright and trademark

LONDON -- Artificial intelligence company Stability AI mostly prevailed against Getty Images Tuesday in a British court battle over intellectual property. Seattle-based Getty Images, which owns an extensive online library of images and video, had filed suit against Stability AI in a widely watched case that went to trial at Britain's High Court in June. The case was among a wave of lawsuits filed by movie studios, authors and artists challenging tech companies' use of their works to train AI chatbots. According to a judge's ruling released Tuesday, Getty narrowly won its argument that Stability had infringed its trademark, but lost its claim for secondary infringement of copyright. Both sides claimed victory. "This is a significant win for intellectual property owners," Getty Images said in a statement. Shares of Getty dipped three per cent before the opening bell in the U.S. Stability said it was pleased with the ruling. "This final ruling ultimately resolves the copyright concerns that were the core issue," Stability General Counsel Christian Dowell said. Getty argued that the development of Stability's AI image maker, called Stable Diffusion, was a "brazen infringement" of its library of images "on a staggering scale." While Getty accused Stability of infringing both its copyright and trademark, the company dropped its primary copyright allegations during the trial, indicating that it didn't think its arguments would succeed. Getty also sued for trademark infringement because its watermark appeared on some of the images generated by Stability's chatbot. Justice Joanna Smith said in her ruling that Getty's trademark claims "succeed (in part)" but that her findings are "both historic and extremely limited in scope." Stability argued that the case doesn't belong in the United Kingdom because the AI model's training technically happened elsewhere, on computers run by U.S. tech giant Amazon. It also argued that "only a tiny proportion" of the random outputs of its AI image-generator "look at all similar" to Getty's works. Tech companies have long argued that "fair use" or "fair dealing" legal doctrines in the United States and United Kingdom allow them to train their AI systems on large troves of writings or images. Getty is also still pursuing a claim of "secondary infringement" of copyright, saying that even if Stability's AI training happened outside the U.K., offering the Stable Diffusion service to British users amounted to importing unlawful copies of its images into the country. Smith dismissed Getty's argument, saying that Stable Diffusion's AI didn't infringe copyright because it doesn't store "store or reproduce any Copyright Works (and has never done so)." Getty is also pursuing a copyright infringement lawsuit in the United States against Stability. It originally sued Getty in 2023 but refiled the case in a San Francisco federal court in August. The Getty lawsuits are among a slew of cases that highlight how the generative AI boom is fueling a clash between tech companies and creative industries. Anthropic agreed to pay US$1.5 billion to settle a class-action lawsuit by book authors who say the company took pirated copies of their works to train its Claude chatbot. Separately, a federal judge dismissed a lawsuit from a group of 13 authors who made similar accusations against Facebook owner Meta Platforms in training its AI system Llama. Warner Bros. has sued Midjourney for copyright infringement, alleging that its image generator enables subscribers to create AI-generated images and videos of copyrighted characters like Superman and Bugs Bunny. Disney and Universal also sued Midjourney earlier in a separate, joint copyright lawsuit, alleging the San Francisco-based startup pirated the libraries to generate and distribute unauthorized copies of famed characters like Darth Vader and the Minions.

Getty Images largely loses landmark UK lawsuit over AI image generator

LONDON (Reuters) -Getty Images largely lost its landmark lawsuit against artificial intelligence company Stability AI over its image generator at London's High Court on Tuesday. Seattle-based Getty, which produces editorial content and creative stock images and video, accused Stability AI of using its images to "train" its Stable Diffusion system, which can generate images from text inputs. The company had sued Stability AI for breach of copyright on the grounds Stable Diffusion was trained using Getty's images, and that images generated by Stable Diffusion reproduced its copyrighted images. But Getty dropped that part of its case mid-trial, partly due to a lack of evidence about where Stable Diffusion was "trained", which intellectual property lawyers said could limit the wider significance of Tuesday's ruling for the law on AI. Getty's claims of trademark infringement and for secondary copyright infringement, alleging that Stability AI imported into the United Kingdom an AI model which breached its copyright remained live ahead of the court's decision. Judge Joanna Smith said in a written ruling that Getty had succeeded "in part" on trademark infringement, but that her findings were "both historic and extremely limited in scope". She also dismissed Getty's secondary copyright infringement claim. The company's shares were seen down 6.6% in premarket trading following the ruling.