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

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

2025-11-13Technology
--:--
--:--
Elon
Good morning Norris, I'm Elon. Welcome to Goose Pod for Thursday, November 13th.
Morgan Freedman
I'm Morgan Freedman. Today's topic: An AI firm's landmark court victory over copyright claims.
Elon
Absolutely pivotal. Stability AI, the minds behind Stable Diffusion, just won a landmark case in the UK against Getty Images. Getty claimed copyright infringement because their images were used for AI training, but the High Court dismissed it. A huge win for innovation.
Morgan Freedman
It is a moment of profound change. The court decided that an AI model, because it doesn't store direct copies of the images but learns from them, is not an "infringing copy." It draws a new line in the sand for what it means to create.
Elon
Exactly! The old rules don't apply. It's not copying, it's learning. Though, the court did find some minor trademark infringement where the AI generated Getty's watermark. A small concession, but the core principle stands. This blows the doors wide open for AI development.
Morgan Freedman
I've often found that progress requires re-evaluation. While Stability AI won this battle, it's interesting to see other companies, like Perplexity AI, choosing a different path by striking a direct licensing deal with Getty. Two very different philosophies on display.
Elon
That's the difference between building the future and just participating in it. The legal framework is ancient. The UK's Copyright Act dates back to 1988! It has this strange clause, Section 9(3), that tries to define a "computer-generated work" without a human author.
Morgan Freedman
It was a forward-thinking attempt for its time, designed to reassure investors that computer outputs could be protected assets. The law assigns authorship to the "person by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work are undertaken." A legal fiction, really.
Elon
A clumsy one. It's why Getty’s case hit a wall. They couldn't even prove the AI training happened in the UK. Stability AI argued the work was done on cloud servers in the US. In a global, decentralized world, where does a 'creation' even happen?
Morgan Freedman
That jurisdictional question becomes central. Getty had to drop their main copyright claim because of it. They were left arguing that making the AI model available for download in the UK was like importing an infringing copy, which is a much harder case to make.
Elon
It's an absurdly outdated concept. You can't "import" software in the traditional sense. This ruling forces the law to catch up with reality. The code doesn't 'contain' the images any more than my brain contains every book I've ever read. It's about learned patterns.
Morgan Freedman
And yet, this progress creates a deep conflict. On one side, you have the creative industries. Artists like Elton John have accused the UK government of "committing theft" with proposals to relax copyright for AI training, allowing tech firms to use their work without payment.
Elon
Theft is a strong word for progress. Are we 'stealing' from carriage makers by building cars? The government is just trying to create a text and data mining exception so we can build better models. You can't build the most powerful AI with one hand tied behind your back.
Morgan Freedman
The heart of the matter is whether AI is a tool or a replacement. The artists argue this isn't just about data, it's about their livelihood. They see their life's work being scraped and used to generate competing products, threatening the entire creative ecosystem.
Elon
But that's the nature of disruptive innovation. The current model is inefficient. We need to move past licensing every single piece of data. The goal should be to build systems that create entirely new things, not just rehash the old. Creators should adapt, not obstruct.
Morgan Freedman
The impact of that adaptation is what worries many. The UK’s creative economy is worth over 124 billion pounds. The concern is that this ruling, and the policies it might encourage, could devalue human creativity on an industrial scale. It's a significant gamble.
Elon
It's a calculated risk for an even bigger reward. Look, AI companies are incredibly well-funded. We're not talking about small startups. This is about building foundational technology for the future. You can't put a price tag on that level of advancement.
Morgan Freedman
But Baroness Kidron in the House of Lords is trying to do just that, pushing amendments to require overseas AI companies to respect UK copyright if they sell products here. It's a clear attempt to protect the value of that creative work from being eroded.
Elon
They can try, but the momentum is unstoppable. The UK government is already consulting on a new AI Bill. This ruling will heavily influence it. Plus, Getty has a parallel lawsuit in the U.S., and you can bet this UK precedent will be front and center.
Morgan Freedman
Indeed. The future seems to be a search for balance. Whether through new laws, like the upcoming AI Bill, or new business models, the question remains: how do we innovate without destroying what came before?
Elon
That's the end of today's discussion. Thank you for listening to Goose Pod.
Morgan Freedman
See you tomorrow, Norris.

AI firm Stability AI won a UK High Court ruling against Getty Images, dismissing copyright claims over AI training data. The court ruled AI learning isn't "infringing copy." This landmark decision favors AI innovation, though a minor trademark infringement was noted. The ruling highlights the clash between AI advancement and creative industry concerns.

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