AI firm wins high court ruling after photo agency’s copyright claim

AI firm wins high court ruling after photo agency’s copyright claim

2025-11-07Technology
--:--
--:--
马老师
早上好 norristong,我是马老师,这里是为你准备的 Goose Pod。今天是11月7日,星期五。
雷总
我是雷总,今天我们来聊聊一个大新闻:一家人工智能公司在图片机构提出版权索赔后,赢得了高等法院的裁决。
雷总
是的,这事儿挺轰动的。伦敦的AI公司Stability AI,也就是Stable Diffusion的开发商,在英国高等法院基本赢了和Getty Images的官司。Getty指控他们用几百万张受版权保护的图片来训练AI模型。
马老师
哦?这就有意思了。这就像一场武林对决。一边是名门正派Getty,手握版权这本传世秘籍;另一边是后起之秀Stability AI,凭着生成式AI这套无招胜有招的新功夫。现在,武林盟主,也就是法院,做出了判决。
雷总
没错!但判决很微妙。法院驳回了最核心的版权侵权指控,但认定在某些情况下,比如AI生成的图片里出现了Getty的水印,这构成了有限的商标侵权。这就像是说,你武功没问题,但打斗时不小心把人家门派的徽章带出来了,得认个错。
马老师
我明白了。水印是留在现场的“签名”,是物证。但关于“学习”武功风格本身算不算“偷窃”,法院认为不算。这是复制秘籍和领悟武学精髓的区别,是个根本性的问题。这个判决对整个江湖的规矩影响深远啊。
雷总
是的,而且更有趣的是,Getty在庭审中途主动放弃了主要的版权侵权指控。因为他们无法证明Stability AI的训练过程是在英国境内完成的。Stability AI说,训练都在美国的服务器上。这是典型的工程师逻辑:“在我的机器上没问题,而我的机器在另一个国家。”
马老师
这让我想起最近环球音乐集团(UMG)和AI音乐公司Udio的合作。UMG开始也是起诉,但后来选择了授权合作。看来这些武林前辈们意识到,面对这股新势力,光靠打压是不行的,得学会共舞,找到新的平衡。
雷总
完全正确。UMG在寻找双赢,而Getty这次诉讼,最终只在商标上取得了法官口中“历史性但范围极其有限”的胜利。甚至有律师评价这个判决对AI法律界来说,有点像“哑炮”,雷声大雨点小。
马老师
要理解这个判决,我们得先看看英国这个“武林”的规矩。他们的法律,也就是1988年的《版权、设计和专利法》,其实非常超前。它里面有一个“计算机生成的作品”的概念,承认了没有人类作者的作品。这在当年可是个创举。
雷总
对,就是第九条第三款。从我们技术人员的角度看,这太有意思了。它规定,这类作品的“作者”是“为创作作品做出必要安排的人”。那么问题来了,这个人是指输入提示词的用户,还是开发AI模型的程序员呢?法律没有说得特别清楚。
马老师
这就好比问,一套新剑法的创始人,是铸剑的铁匠,还是练剑的侠客?英国的法律倾向于把功劳给铁匠,也就是那个做出“必要安排”的人。这和美国那边很不一样,他们坚持必须有“人”的手在挥舞画笔才算创作。
雷总
而整个案件的核心就在于训练过程。Getty指控Stability AI从他们网站上抓取了1200万张图片,这个数据量是惊人的!这个过程我们称之为“文本和数据挖掘”(TDM),就像让一个学生读完一整个图书馆的书,去学习里面的模式和规律。
马老师
一个读了1200万本书的学生!但问题是,读一本书,和偷一本书,是一回事吗?这个学生并没有记住每一个字,而是领悟了风格、结构,领悟了其中的“道”。Stability AI也正是这么辩护的,说他们的模型是学习模式,而不是存储图像。
雷总
目前英国的TDM豁免条款非常狭窄,只适用于非商业性研究。政府一直在讨论是否要扩大到商业用途,就像欧盟那样。但创意产业的反对声非常大,他们认为这对他们是“生存威胁”。
马老师
我能理解他们的担忧。这等于把所有门派的武功秘籍都公开了,谁都可以学。那各大门派肯定会说,我们赖以生存的独门绝技被贬值了。这就是新旧势力之间最根本的矛盾。
雷总
所以Getty的案子是一个重大的考验。他们把这次诉讼定义为为整个创意产业“赌上身家”的一战。但就是因为那个司法管辖权的问题,他们没法证明训练发生在英国,所以不得不在战斗中途改变策略。
马老师
他们从正面强攻,转为了一种更迂回的打法。他们争辩说,即使训练发生在国外,但把训练好的模型带到英国境内,就等于进口了侵权复制品。这是一个很聪明的法律招数,但在版权问题上,法官最终没有采纳。
雷总
这个案子清晰地展现了当下的巨大冲突。一边是创意产业,像埃尔顿·约翰、凯特·布什这些艺术家和作家,他们正在游说政府,认为AI的这种行为就是盗窃。埃尔顿·约翰甚至直接指责政府的计划是“纵容盗窃”。
马老师
艺术家们是传统门派的守护者。他们花了一辈子时间磨练技艺,现在突然出现一种力量,几秒钟就能复制他们的风格。他们当然会感到威胁。这不仅仅是钱的问题,更是对人类创作价值本身的挑战。
雷总
另一边就是我们这样的科技公司。我们认为,要构建强大的人工智能,就需要广泛地接触数据。这是通往创新的必经之路,是下一次工业革命的引擎。我们觉得现有的版权法就像一堵旧墙,为了进步需要被推倒。
马老师
这是典型的“保护”与“进步”的困境。你是选择加高城堡的围墙,还是修建更宽的道路连接世界?英国政府现在就被夹在中间,试图扮演一个能让两派都满意的明君。
雷总
他们提出的一个解决方案是“选择退出”(opt-out)机制。也就是说,默认情况下,AI可以使用你的作品进行训练,除非你明确表示“不”。这个举证责任的倒置,就是让埃尔顿·约翰他们非常愤怒的地方。
马老师
这我能理解。它改变了基本原则。这就像说,任何人都可以进你家,除非你把门锁上;而不是说,你必须受到邀请才能进来。这极大地改变了创作者和科技公司之间的力量平衡。
雷总
所以,如何在这个复杂的版权迷宫中找到出路,现在已经成了每个企业的核心战略问题。它不再只是一个法律细节,而是直接关系到风险、创新和在这个AI新时代里的全球竞争力。
马老师
那么,这个判决的真正影响是什么?对创作者来说,这无疑是一次打击。有位资深律师说,这表明英国的版权制度不足以保护他们。这带来了一种不确定性,感觉脚下的土地正在动摇。
雷总
对AI开发者来说,尤其是在英国的,这暂时算是一个绿灯。它暗示了,只要你谨慎选择训练地点,就有可能规避英国的版权索赔。这可能会让英国成为一个部署AI模型更有吸引力的地方,即便训练是在别处完成。
马老师
但这可能会带来更广泛的社会影响。英国的创意经济体量巨大,每年贡献1240亿英镑。这是他们最重要的出口产品之一。如果为了一个AI驱动的新承诺,而削弱对这个行业的保护,这会不会是“杀鸡取卵”呢?
雷总
这正是价值千金的问题。为了应对这个漏洞,英国上议院最近通过了一项法案修正案,要求在英国销售产品的海外AI公司必须遵守英国的版权法。他们正在努力亡羊补牢。
马老师
这是一场博弈。法院走一步,议会就反制一步。最终目标是找到一个可持续的未来。一个AI是伙伴,而不是寄生虫的未来。创新的动力不应来自对过去的抓取,而应来自付费给创作者,共同建设未来。
雷总
展望未来,英国政府仍在探索。他们今年早些时候结束了一轮公众咨询。大家都在等待一部正式的《人工智能法案》,但现在看来被推迟了,预计要到2026年下半年才有可能出台。他们想先观察一下局势的发展。
马老师
江湖的尘埃远未落定。这场对决远未结束,这只是漫长比武中的第一回合。其他赛场,比如美国的判决,也将至关重要。
雷总
没错。Getty在美国也对Stability AI提起了类似的诉讼,并且他们表示会把这次英国的判决作为参考。这是一个全球性的议题,各个国家都在尝试制定自己的规则。未来仍在被一行行代码、一场场官司书写着。
马老师
今天的核心要点是:创作与创新之间的平衡正在被重新定义。这是一个里程碑式的时刻。今天的讨论就到这里。感谢收听Goose Pod。
雷总
norristong,明天见。

AI公司Stability AI在与Getty Images的版权诉讼中胜诉。法院驳回了核心版权侵权指控,但认定在特定情况下存在商标侵权。此判决对AI训练数据的使用和版权保护的界限产生了深远影响,引发了关于创新与创作者权益平衡的广泛讨论。

AI firm wins high court ruling after photo agency’s copyright claim

Read original at The Guardian

A London-based artificial intelligence firm has won a landmark high court case examining the legality of AI models using vast troves of copyrighted data without permission.Stability AI, whose directors include the Oscar-winning film-maker behind Avatar, James Cameron, successfully resisted a claim from Getty Images that it had infringed the international photo agency’s copyright.

The ruling is seen as a blow to copyright owners’ exclusive right to reap the rewards of their work, with one senior lawyer, Rebecca Newman, a legal director at Addleshaw Goddard, warning it means “the UK’s secondary copyright regime is not strong enough to protect its creators”.There was evidence that Getty’s images were used to train Stability’s model, which allows users to generate images with text prompts.

Stability was also found to have infringed Getty’s trademarks in some cases.The judge, Mrs Justice Joanna Smith, said the question of where to strike the balance between the interests of the creative industries on one side and the AI industry on the other was “of very real societal importance”. But she was only able to rule on relatively narrow claims after Getty had to withdraw parts of its case during the trial this summer.

Getty Images sued Stability AI for infringement of its intellectual property, alleging the AI company was “completely indifferent to what they fed into the training data” and scraped and copied millions of its images.The judgment comes amid a row over how the Labour government should legislate on the issue of copyright and AI, with artists and authors including Elton John, Kate Bush, Dua Lipa and Kazuo Ishiguro lobbying for protection.

Meanwhile, tech companies are calling for wide access to copyrighted content to allow them to build the most powerful and effective generative AI systems.The government is consulting on copyright and AI and has said: “Uncertainty over how our copyright framework operates is holding back growth for our AI and creative industries.

That cannot continue.”It is looking at whether to introduce a “text and data mining exception” into UK copyright law, which would allow copyright works to be used to train AI models in the UK unless the rights holder opts their works out of such training, said lawyers at Mishcon de Reya who have been following the issue.

Getty had to drop its original copyright claim as there was no evidence the training took place in the UK. But it continued with its suit claiming Stability was still using within its systems copies of its visual assets, which it called the “lifeblood” of its business. It claimed Stability AI had infringed its trademarks because some AI-generated images included Getty watermarks, and that it was guilty of “passing off”.

In a sign of the complexity of AI copyright cases, it essentially argued that Stability’s image-generation model, called Stable Diffusion, amounted to an infringing copy because its making would have constituted copyright infringement had it been carried out in the UK.The judge ruled: “An AI model such as Stable Diffusion which does not store or reproduce any copyright works (and has never done so) is not an ‘infringing copy’.

” She declined to rule on the passing off claim and ruled in favour of some of Getty’s claims about trademark infringement related to watermarks.In a statement, Getty Images said: “We remain deeply concerned that even well-resourced companies such as Getty Images face significant challenges in protecting their creative works given the lack of transparency requirements.

We invested millions of pounds to reach this point with only one provider that we need to continue to pursue in another venue.“We urge governments, including the UK, to establish stronger transparency rules, which are essential to prevent costly legal battles and to allow creators to protect their rights.

”Christian Dowell, the general counsel for Stability AI, said: “We are pleased with the court’s ruling on the remaining claims in this case. Getty’s decision to voluntarily dismiss most of its copyright claims at the conclusion of trial testimony left only a subset of claims before the court, and this final ruling ultimately resolves the copyright concerns that were the core issue.

We are grateful for the time and effort the court has put forth to resolve the important questions in this case.”

Analysis

Conflict+
Related Info+
Core Event+
Background+
Impact+
Future+

Related Podcasts

AI firm wins high court ruling after photo agency’s copyright claim | Goose Pod | Goose Pod