From Big Bang to Damp Squib: Getty v Stability AI and the missed watershed

The recent High Court decision in Getty Images v Stability AI was widely anticipated as a watershed moment for the intersection of Intellectual Property (IP) and Artificial Intelligence (AI). Many in the legal and creative sectors expected, and hoped, that the case would deliver the long-awaited clarity on the application of copyright law to AI training. However, as the dust settles, the judgment is perhaps better characterised as a “what might have been” moment - a damp squib rather than a big bang - after Getty Images was forced to abandon its primary copyright infringement claim during the proceedings.

The procedural backdrop: A narrowed case

When proceedings began, Getty Images advanced a broad suite of claims, including primary and secondary copyright infringement, database right infringement, trade mark infringement, and passing off. As Mrs Justice Joanna Smith DBE noted at the outset:

“Shortly prior to closing submissions, the Claimants...abandoned various aspects of their claim, thereby narrowing the issues to be determined by the court and rendering large parts of the opening submissions and evidence irrelevant. Nevertheless, the claim continues to raise issues of importance in the field of intellectual property in connection with the use of AI models such as Stable Diffusion.”

The most significant retreat was the abandonment of the primary copyright infringement claim - the very issue that had made this case a focal point for the creative and tech industries. Getty Images acknowledged there was no evidence that the training and development of Stable Diffusion took place in the UK, and that the “Outputs Claim” (alleging infringing outputs) had been substantially addressed by Stability AI’s blocking of certain prompts. As a result, the case’s potential to be a landmark decision on AI training and copyright was, in the judge’s words, “diminished”:

“As to whether this judgment will, in reality, have anything to say on the balance to be struck between the two warring factions, it is worth observing at the outset that this court can only determine the issues that arise on the (diminished) case that remains before it...”

Copyright infringement: The secondary claim

With the primary claim dropped, the focus shifted to secondary copyright infringement - specifically, whether the act of importing or distributing Stable Diffusion in the UK constituted infringement under sections 22 and 23 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA). The key question for the court was whether Stable Diffusion was an article which was capable of constituting an infringing copy of copyrighted works.

The article at issue in this case was the model weights upon which Stable Diffusion’s knowledge was based. The crux was whether the model weights could be considered an “infringing copy” of Getty’s works. Getty argued for a broad interpretation, suggesting that the model weights, shaped by exposure to copyrighted images, should be treated as infringing copies. Stability AI countered that the model weights could not represent an infringing copy as they do not store or reproduce any copyright works.

Mrs Justice Smith sided with Stability AI:

“It is not enough...that ‘the time of making of the copies of the Copyright Works coincides with the making of the Model’. 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.”

This finding means that, under current UK law, training an AI model on copyright works does not, by itself, make the resulting model an infringing copy - provided the works are not stored by the model.

Trade mark infringement: limited success

The remaining live issue concerned whether synthetic images generated by Stable Diffusion infringed Getty’s trade marks by reproducing watermarks.

Under sections 10(1) and 10(2) of the Trade Marks Act 1994, Getty argued that outputs containing watermarks identical to its registered marks were likely to cause confusion among the public. The court agreed, but only in respect of a small number of historic and limited instances where watermarks appeared in outputs.

The judge emphasised the fact-sensitive and narrow scope of these findings. Most notably, Getty’s claim under section 10(3), alleging harm to the distinctive character and reputation of its marks and unfair advantage, was dismissed for lack of evidence of actual harm.

In short, Getty succeeded on a very limited basis, and the judgment makes clear that these infringements were tied to early versions of the model and were not systemic.

What might have been: the missed watershed

The legal community had hoped for a definitive ruling on whether AI training on copyright works constitutes infringement, a question left unanswered due to the procedural narrowing of the case. As Mrs Justice Smith observed:

“It is no part of this court’s task to consider issues that have been abandoned or to consider arguments that are no longer of relevance to the outstanding issues.”

Looking ahead: the need for policy reform

The judgment leaves the UK’s position on AI and copyright largely unchanged, and arguably more favourable to AI developers than to creators. The court’s decision underscores the urgent need for legislative and policy reform to address the challenges posed by generative AI.

The UK Government has anticipated this gap, with its consultation on AI and copyright which closed in February 2025 - with results expected in 2026. The outcome of this process is likely to have a far greater impact on the future of AI and IP than the Getty v Stability AI case ultimately did.

Conclusion

Getty v Stability AI was billed as a potential big bang for AI and copyright law, but the litigation to date has fizzled out as a damp squib. The judgment provides some guidance on the application of existing IP law to AI, but the most pressing questions remain unanswered. Subject to any appeal on the decision, which has not yet been confirmed, all eyes now turn to the UK Government’s ongoing consultation and the prospect of legislative reform to provide the clarity that both creators and AI developers are seeking.

If you have any questions, please contact our contributors below, our IP , Technology & Data team or your usual Brodies contact.