Getty’s Copyright Lawsuit Against Stability AI Could Shape the Future of AI IP Law
Getty Images opened arguments Monday at London’s High Court in a pivotal copyright case against AI company Stability AI. The photo agency rejected the idea that its claims pose a threat to technological innovation, asserting instead that the dispute is about protecting lawful intellectual property rights.
Seattle-based Getty accuses Stability AI of scraping millions of its copyrighted images to train the text-to-image model Stable Diffusion. The company contends this data use occurred without consent or compensation, violating UK copyright and database rights.
The case runs parallel to a similar lawsuit in the United States and is part of a wider wave of legal challenges against AI developers over data sourcing practices.
“Not a Battle Between Creatives and Technology”
Stability AI has denied any infringement and maintains that the case could harm both its business and the broader generative AI sector. “The wider dispute is about technological innovation and freedom of ideas,” a Stability AI spokesperson stated before the trial began.
In court filings, Stability’s legal team argued that Getty’s lawsuit threatens “the wider generative AI industry.”
Getty’s legal counsel, Lindsay Lane, directly refuted that narrative. “It is not a battle between creatives and technology, where a win for Getty Images means the end of AI,” she said. “The two industries can exist in synergistic harmony because copyright works and database rights are critical to the advancement and success of AI … the problem is when AI companies such as Stability want to use those works without payment.”
Legal Precedent for the AI Era
The case is expected to have far-reaching implications. It arrives amid growing scrutiny over how generative AI models are trained using copyrighted data. Since the rise of tools like ChatGPT and Stable Diffusion, artists, publishers, and rights holders have called for stronger protections, with figures like Elton John urging reforms to protect creators.
Rebecca Newman, a lawyer at Addleshaw Goddard not involved in the case, remarked that “legally, we’re in uncharted territory. This case will be pivotal in setting the boundaries of the monopoly granted by UK copyright in the age of AI.”
Cerys Wyn Davies of Pinsent Masons added that the ruling “could have a major bearing on market practice and the UK’s attractiveness as a jurisdiction for AI development.” As the trial proceeds, courts — and potentially policymakers — will be watching closely. The outcome could redefine how copyright laws apply to machine learning models and the datasets they rely on.
