UK High Court Rules Against Getty Images in Landmark AI Copyright Case

The UK High Court has delivered a pivotal judgment in Getty Images v. Stability AI, largely rejecting the stock photography giant’s intellectual property claims and establishing a significant precedent for AI model liability in the United Kingdom.

In a decision handed down on November 4, 2025, Mrs Justice Joanna Smith DBE dismissed Getty’s secondary copyright infringement claim against Stability AI’s Stable Diffusion model, ruling that the AI system does not contain or store reproductions of copyrighted works. However, the court found limited trademark infringement related to the generation of watermark-like images in early model versions.

Key Points at a Glance

• Secondary copyright claim rejected: Court found Stable Diffusion models contain no copies of Getty’s copyrighted images
• “No copies in the model”: Model weights are purely derived numerical parameters, not reproductions of training data
• Intangible “articles” recognized: UK copyright law can apply to non-physical objects, potentially conflicting with EU precedent
• Limited trademark win: Historic watermark generation in early versions constituted infringement, but damages were minimal
• Territorial limitations: Ruling only applies to models trained outside the UK; domestic training questions remain unresolved

The Core Copyright Ruling: “No Copies in the Model”

The court’s most significant finding centered on the technical nature of generative AI models. Mrs Justice Joanna Smith DBE concluded that Stable Diffusion’s model weights “do not and have not stored or contained reproductions of Getty’s asserted copyright works; they are the product of training, but are not themselves copies of the relevant works.”

This endorsement of the “no copies in the model” principle represents a major victory for AI developers. The judge distinguished AI models from temporary RAM storage cases, stating: “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. They are purely the product of the patterns and features which they have learnt over time during the training process.”

Because the court determined the model itself wasn’t an “infringing copy,” it didn’t need to address whether infringing acts occurred during training—particularly significant since Getty had already abandoned its primary copyright claims due to lack of evidence of UK-based training.

The Intangible “Article” Debate: A Departure from EU Law?

In a surprising legal development, the court held that an “article” under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA) can be intangible. This interpretation, reached through the “always speaking” principle for statutory construction, suggests that electronic copies stored in cloud environments could constitute “articles” for secondary infringement purposes.

However, legal experts note this appears to conflict with retained EU law. The EU’s right of distribution, as interpreted by the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Art & Allposters case, is explicitly confined to “tangible objects.” The UK court’s failure to address this alignment issue creates uncertainty and opens the door for appeal on grounds of legal error.

Practically, the distinction between hosted access and downloads emerged as critical: remotely accessing a model hosted outside the UK doesn’t constitute importation, whereas downloading model weights would—though only if those weights were themselves infringing copies, which the court found they are not.

Limited Trademark Victory for Getty

Getty achieved modest success on its trademark claims. The court found that early versions of Stable Diffusion occasionally generated images containing watermarks identical or confusingly similar to Getty’s registered marks, constituting limited infringement under Sections 10(1) and 10(2) of the Trade Marks Act 1994.

However, the judge determined these infringements were historic, limited in scope, and largely resolved by version 2.x of the model. No additional damages were awarded, and claims under Section 10(3) (dilution) failed entirely. The court didn’t substantively address passing off claims, deeming them unnecessary given the trademark findings.

Practical Implications for AI Developers and Rights Holders

For AI Developers

The decision provides significant reassurance for companies training models outside the UK. If models don’t store copyrighted works, they can likely be deployed in the UK without secondary copyright infringement liability. The lower risk profile of hosted services versus downloads offers a clear strategic path forward.

This ruling particularly benefits developers of AI image generators who have been operating under legal uncertainty. Companies developing tools like Midjourney, DALL-E 3, and other generative AI platforms can now point to this precedent when addressing similar copyright concerns.

For Rights Holders

Content owners face substantial challenges enforcing UK copyright against AI models trained overseas. The ruling highlights the territorial limitations of current law and the difficulty of proving infringement when training occurs in jurisdictions with different legal standards.

For the Legal Landscape

The intangible “article” ruling creates uncertainty around digital exhaustion principles. If intangible copies are treated as “articles,” could the first-sale doctrine apply to digital files? This risks collapsing the EU’s careful distinction between goods and services, potentially unsettling established digital commerce frameworks.

What’s Next: Appeal and Legislative Action

The judgment is widely expected to be appealed, particularly given the apparent departure from retained EU law. An appellate court could overturn the intangible “article” reasoning as ultra vires under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.

More fundamentally, the case underscores the urgent need for legislative updates. Industry observers anticipate the UK government will eventually implement a statutory licensing framework to balance AI innovation with creator compensation—similar to discussions happening globally. Until then, AI developers operating outside the UK maintain a significant legal advantage.

This development comes at a time when the AI image generation industry is experiencing rapid growth, with companies like Black Forest Labs releasing advanced models like Flux.1. The legal clarity provided by this ruling, even if temporary pending appeal, offers important guidance for the sector.

Verdict

This landmark ruling establishes that AI models trained without storing copyrighted works can avoid secondary infringement liability in the UK, but creates new legal uncertainties around intangible property rights. While Stability AI secured a decisive copyright victory, the trademark findings serve as a cautionary tale about model outputs. The decision’s tension with EU precedent makes it vulnerable on appeal, and its limited scope—focusing only on secondary infringement—leaves critical questions about primary infringement and territorial jurisdiction unanswered. For the AI and creative industries alike, the judgment is less a final resolution than a roadmap for future litigation and legislation.