Getty Images v Stability AI - key takeaways

In a landmark ruling, Stability AI has successfully defended against Getty Images’ claim of copyright infringement. This decision represents an important marker in the developing intersection between IP law and AI.

While a partial success for Getty (the claimant), the judgment effectively legitimises the training and distribution of AI models in the absence of direct copying or storage of copyrighted works. Stability AI's (the respondent) limited exposure on trade mark grounds may therefore encourage AI developers to focus on prompt filtering, watermark detection, and clearer user guidance to minimise confusion.

The case

The case was heard before Mrs Justice Joanna Smith DBE in the High Court (Chancery Division, Intellectual Property List) and concerned allegations by Getty Images that Stability AI’s Stable Diffusion model infringed its intellectual property rights. Getty Images alleged trade mark infringement, passing off, and secondary copyright infringement in connection with the training and operation of the AI model.

Initially, Getty sought to rely on claims of primary copyright and database right infringement, however these were abandoned before trial. The remaining issues related to:

1. The generation of synthetic images containing Getty’s and iStock’s trade marks; and
2. Whether the model itself constituted an infringing copy under sections 22-23 of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988.

Court ruling

On 4 November 2025, the High Court published its decision. Mrs Justice Smith found limited trade mark infringement under sections 10(1) and 10(2) of the Trade Marks Act 1994, where Stable Diffusion produced images reproducing the iStock watermark. However, all other allegations of trade mark infringement, including under section 10(3) for unfair advantage or detriment, were dismissed. The court found insufficient evidence of free-riding, economic harm or harm to Getty’s reputation.

More significantly, the court dismissed the claim of secondary copyright infringement, holding that a trained machine learning model is not an “infringing copy” under section 27 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. Stability AI’s distribution of Stable Diffusion in the UK via open-source platforms did not constitute importation or distribution of an infringing article. The passing-off claim was also rejected.

Outcome

In summary, Getty succeeded narrowly on a few factual instances of trade mark infringement but failed on all copyright and broader trade mark claims. The court’s findings were highly fact-specific and so avoided making general pronouncements on the legality of AI training practices.

The court’s reasoning on secondary infringement rested on settled statutory interpretation rather than disputed fact. It is therefore likely that an appeal may take place.

For more information, please contact our intellectual property team.