Getty Images has failed to set a precedent banning AI training on its images in a copyright case against Stability AI in the UK.
Getty withdrew a key part of its case against Stability AI during the trial as it admitted there was no evidence the training and development of AI text-to-image product Stable Diffusion took place in the UK.
In addition a claim of secondary infringement of copyright was dismissed because, the judge said, “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.
A ruling published on Tuesday found in Getty’s favour that the use of Stable Diffusion in the UK sometimes generated images bearing Getty’s trademarks.
The High Court judge, Mrs Justice Joanna Smith, said her “findings are both historic and extremely limited in scope”.
She said: “While I have found instances of trademark infringement, I have been unable to determine that these were widespread, or that they continued beyond the release of v2.x,” referring to versions of Stable Diffusion released after December 2022.
“In the circumstances, there is, in my judgment, no basis whatsoever for a claim for additional damages… 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.”
Getty is also pursuing a lawsuit against Stability AI in the US.
Getty was the first media business to begin legal proceedings against an AI company in the UK, filing its case in January 2023.
It had argued millions of its copyrighted images were “unlawfully copied and processed” without a licence to train Stable Diffusion, which it said allowed users to create “essentially identical copies of copyright works”.
Stability AI had called the lawsuit as it stood at the start of the trial an “overt threat” to its business “and the wider generative AI industry”.
Getty: Even ‘well-resourced’ companies like us face ‘significant challenges’ protecting our IP
Getty said in a statement: “Today’s ruling confirms that Stable Diffusion’s inclusion of Getty Images’ trademarks in AI‑generated outputs infringed those trademarks.
“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. This is a significant win for intellectual property owners.
“The ruling delivered another key finding; that, wherever the training and development did take place, Getty Images’ copyright‑protected works were used to train Stable Diffusion.
“The ruling also established a powerful precedent that intangible articles, such as AI models, are subject to copyright infringement claims in the same way as tangible articles. We will be taking forward findings of fact from the UK ruling in our US case.
“Beyond the specifics of the decision, 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.”
Getty signs Perplexity AI licensing deal
The ruling came days after Getty announced it had signed a multi-year licensing deal with Perplexity covering display of images across the AI company’s search and discovery tools.
Perplexity said it will improve how it displays images, including showing a credit with a link to its source.
Nick Unsworth, vice president for strategic development at Getty, said: “Partnerships such as this support AI platforms to increase the quality and accuracy of information delivered to consumers, ultimately building a more engaging and reliable experience.
“This agreement paves the way for a productive and collaborative partnership between our companies, where we will work together to improve attribution of our contributors’ work and Getty Images’ high‑quality creative and editorial content will enhance Perplexity’s platform.”
IP experts: Case provides ‘some comfort’ but also a ‘warning’ for AI developers
Iain Connor, intellectual property partner with law firm Michelmores, said after Tuesday’s ruling: “The most significant AI case to reach the English High Court has been decided and has turned out to be a massive damp squib.”
He said the withdrawal of the training claim and subsequent ruling “leaves the UK without a meaningful verdict on the lawfulness of an AI model’s process of learning from copyright materials”.
Connor added: “The question of whether an AI system is inherently unlawful if trained on third party copyright materials also failed. This was a highly technical ‘secondary infringement’ claim which failed because the AI model, Stable Diffusion, did not store or reproduce any works protected by copyright.
“This should be contrasted with the US legal case involving Anthropic which settled for $1.5bn because Anthropic admitted that it retained copies of author’s works without permission after it had trained its AI.
“There was a small win for Getty Images in that it was held that Stability AI infringed Getty Images’ trade marks by including Getty Images’ and iStock’s watermarks on its final AI images. However, this will provide Getty Images with little solace.
“The legal community still waits with bated breath for a judgment to rule on the legality or otherwise of the training and use of AI models.
“The case does nothing to answer the ‘big tech vs creative industries’ argument but Getty Images share price rose on Friday on the back of an AI licence deal it struck which suggests that both sides believe it is better to do commercial deals than seek to resolve the issues through the courts.”
Simon Barker, partner and head of intellectual property at law firm Freeths, said the case would give AI developers “some comfort” that “the mere act of training on large datasets will not of itself expose them to liability for copyright infringement in the UK” as long as the works are not stored or reproduced.
“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,” he added.
“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.”
Email pged@pressgazette.co.uk to point out mistakes, provide story tips or send in a letter for publication on our "Letters Page" blog
