According to engadget, Stability AI has partially succeeded in defending itself against Getty Images’ copyright infringement claims in a UK High Court case. Getty originally sued Stability AI back in 2023, alleging the company used millions of its copyright-protected images to train Stable Diffusion without permission. The case took a turn when Getty withdrew its primary infringement claims because it couldn’t prove unauthorized copying actually happened in the UK. Justice Joanna Smith ruled that “an AI model such as Stable Diffusion which does not store or reproduce any copyright works is not an ‘infringing copy'” under current UK law. This ruling came despite evidence showing Getty’s watermarks appearing in some outputs. Both companies are celebrating aspects of the decision, with Getty expressing concern about “lack of transparent requirements” while Stability’s counsel called it resolving “the copyright concerns that were the core issue.”
Sponsored content — provided for informational and promotional purposes.
What This Actually Means
Here’s the thing – this ruling creates a pretty important distinction in how UK law views AI training. The court basically said that even if copyrighted material was used during training, the resulting AI model itself isn’t an infringing copy because it doesn’t actually store or reproduce the original works. That’s a huge deal for AI companies operating in the UK. But it’s not a complete free pass – the judge did acknowledge some evidence of Getty‘s images being used, calling it “both historic and extremely limited in scope.” So we’re looking at a mixed bag that gives both sides something to work with.
The Bigger Picture for Creators and Companies
This ruling probably won’t make artists and content creators sleep any easier at night. Getty’s statement hits on the real concern – even “well-resourced companies” feel exposed because the rules aren’t clear enough. And that’s the fundamental problem everyone’s grappling with. How do you balance innovation with protection when the technology moves faster than legislation? Meanwhile, just days before this ruling, Getty announced a licensing deal with Perplexity AI that includes proper attribution and linking back to source material. That feels like Getty hedging its bets – if you can’t beat ’em, license to ’em.
Where Do We Go From Here?
Look, this UK ruling is significant but it’s just one battle in a much larger war over AI and copyright. Different countries are approaching this differently, and we’re likely years away from anything resembling global consistency. The fact that Getty is already pushing the UK government to update laws tells you this isn’t over. And Stability‘s victory lap might be premature if other courts see things differently. What happens when similar cases land in US or EU courts? We’re basically watching the legal framework for AI get built case by case, and honestly, it’s messy as hell. But one thing’s clear – the old rules weren’t written for this technology, and everyone’s scrambling to figure out what comes next.
