Written by: Lyrinda Persaud, Legal Officer II

The case of Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2005] EWHC 38 (Ch) is a landmark case in the United Kingdom (UK)[1] which illustrates the interrelationship between intellectual property (IP) and artificial intelligence (AI). As this is the first of its kind case in the UK, which addresses the unauthorized use of copyrighted works in training AI models, it is likely to establish a precedent for the judicial interpretation and application of existing IP laws in the context of frontier technologies. At its core, the dispute focuses on Getty’s allegations that Stability AI unlawfully scraped and used its copyrighted images to train its generative AI model. This gave rise to legal issues surrounding the liability of AI developers, sufficiency of the existing copyright framework and the balance between innovation and the protection of creative outputs.

Getty[2] centred on three copyright infringement claims identified by Mrs. Justice Joanna Smith. The first “Training and Development Claim,”[3] concerned the copying of images onto servers during the training of the AI model; the “Secondary Infringement Claim,”[4] involved the importation of AI software into the UK and the “Output Claim”[5] was premised on the allegation that the AI generated content reproduced substantive parts of Getty’s original works. Although the High Court refused to grant permission for a representative claim on the basis that the proposed class of rightsholders could not be precisely identified, Getty[6] demonstrates the lacunae in treating with collective copyright actions involving AI as well as the limits of the current legal framework.

Also pertinent is trade mark infringement as some of the AI generated content allegedly reproduced distorted versions of Getty’s watermark. This presupposes reputational harm and damage to reputation.[7]

Of equal importance is the jurisdiction to resolve disputes arises as the Claimant’s arguments in Getty[8] parallel the claims of the lawsuit which was filed in the USA’s District Court for the District of Delaware.[9] These issues therefore contribute to the need for regulation of AI.

Consideration may be given to the pastiche exception wherein it may be argued that the model merely learns patterns rather than storing copyrighted works, and the argument that substantive similarity is not applicable due to the distortion of the AI generated output. Further, licensing agreements may be a practical solution to safeguard the creator’s rights and to facilitate innovation by AI.

Getty[10] therefore is not solely a dispute but a case which will shape how copyright law addresses the complexities presented by AI, ensuring that technology does not compromise creative ingenuity.

[1] Zoya Yasmine, ‘Getty Images v Stability AI: Why Should UK Copyright Law Require Licences for Text and Data Mining Used to Train Commercial Generative AI Systems?’ (2024) 1 Cambridge Journal of Artificial Intelligence, 108 < https://cjai.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Getty-Images-v-Stability-AI-Why-Should-UK-Copyright-Law-Require-Licences-for-Text-and-Data-Mining-Used-to-Train-Commercial-Generative-AI-Systems.pdf> accessed 4 April 2025.

[2] Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 38 (Ch).

[3] Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 38 (Ch).

[4] Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 38 (Ch).

[5] Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 38 (Ch).

[6] Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 38 (Ch).

[7] Priscilla Auleader Napitupulu, Clara Alrosa Fernanda Sinaga and Albert Lukas Pithel Hasugian, ‘The Implication of Generative Artificial Intelligence towards Intellectual Property Rights (Examining the Multifaceted Implications of Generative Artificial Intelligence on Intellectual Property Rights) (2023) 1 (4) West Science Law and Human Rights,  274 < 10.58812/wslhr.v1i04.330> accessed 4 April 2025.

[8] Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 38 (Ch).

[9] Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Stability Al, Inc., 1:23-cv-00135 (D. Del. Feb. 2, 2023) cited in Jon M. Garon, ‘The Revolution Will Be Digitized: General AI, Synthetic Media, and the Medium of Disruption’ (2023) 20 Ohio St Tech L J 139.

[10] Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 38 (Ch).