According to engadget, the UK High Court has ruled in favor of Stability AI in its copyright battle with Getty Images that began in 2023. Justice Joanna Smith determined that AI models like Stable Diffusion aren’t considered “infringing copies” under UK law since they don’t store or reproduce copyright works. The ruling came despite evidence showing Getty’s watermarks appearing in some outputs, which the judge called “both historic and extremely limited in scope.” Getty had originally accused Stability of unlawfully copying millions of protected images to train its AI art tool. Stability successfully defended against secondary infringement claims after Getty withdrew its primary infringement allegations due to lack of UK-specific evidence. Both companies are celebrating aspects of the mixed ruling while Getty urges UK government action on clearer copyright requirements.
Sponsored content — provided for informational and promotional purposes.
What This Really Means
Here’s the thing – this ruling creates a pretty significant loophole for AI companies operating in the UK. Basically, if your AI model doesn’t actually store the copyrighted material, you might be in the clear even if you used that material for training. That’s a huge win for the AI industry, but it leaves creators and copyright holders in a tough spot.
And let’s be honest – the timing here is fascinating. Getty just announced a licensing deal with Perplexity AI days before this ruling dropped. Coincidence? Probably not. It suggests Getty’s hedging its bets – fighting in court while also cutting deals that actually pay photographers and creators.
The Bigger Picture
Look, this ruling doesn’t settle the copyright debate – it just kicks the can down the road. The judge acknowledged some infringement occurred, but called it limited. So where’s the line? How much infringement is “too much” when we’re talking about AI training data?
Getty’s statement about being “deeply concerned” that even “well-resourced companies” face infringement risks tells you everything. If Getty can’t fully protect its massive library, what chance do individual artists have? The system’s clearly not working for anyone except maybe the AI companies.
And Stability‘s general counsel calling this a resolution of “the copyright concerns that were the core issue”? That feels like spin. This ruling addresses one specific legal question in one jurisdiction. The broader copyright battles are far from over.
Where We Go From Here
So what happens now? Getty’s pushing for legislative changes, which makes sense because the current laws weren’t written with AI in mind. But legislation moves slowly, and AI development moves at light speed.
The real question is whether this UK ruling will influence other courts. US courts might see things differently – we’ve already seen some pushback against AI companies in American lawsuits. This isn’t a global precedent, it’s one battle in what’s going to be a very long war.
In the meantime, we’ll probably see more companies following Perplexity’s lead and cutting licensing deals. Because even if you might win in court, the uncertainty’s bad for business. And nobody wants to be the test case that establishes the wrong kind of precedent.
