Getty Images v Stability AI: main copyright claims dropped

Gill Dennis of Pinsent Masons was commenting after reports on Wednesday, including from Law.com and World IP Review, that Getty had told the High Court in London that it was no longer pursuing the claims. Pinsent Masons has asked Getty and Stability AI to verify the news.

Getty has raised legal proceedings before the High Court over Stability AI’s Stable Diffusion system, which automatically generates images based on text or image prompts input by users, alleging infringement of a range of intellectual property rights it claims to own.

Getty’s main claims were of copyright infringement and had concerned allegations that Stability AI had used its images as data inputs for the purposes of training and developing Stable Diffusion, as well as in respect of the outputs Stable Diffusion generated. Those claims are the ones Getty has now dropped. The main thrust of Stability AI’s defence against the claims was that the activities complained of took place outside the scope of UK copyright law.

Getty continues to claim that Stability AI is responsible for secondary copyright infringement, for infringing its trade mark rights, and for ‘passing off’. Stability AI rejects those claims.

Wednesday’s development comes just days after new data laws were finalised by UK law makers – triggering a timeline for actions that could lead to AI-related UK copyright reform.

Dennis said: “This news will come as a blow to both sides of the AI copyright debate who were hoping that the outcome of the trial might bring some clarity to the very issues which have now been dropped. Pressure will now mount on the UK government to revise its own timetable and respond much sooner than it originally planned to its AI and copyright consultation. Only legislation can now bring clarity to the question of where the balance lies between the interests of AI developers and the rights of content creators.”

“The government needs to act quickly to end the current uncertainty but previous failed attempts to do so over several years illustrate just how difficult that is likely to be. This is a particularly sensitive and polarised debate and, in recognition that the UK economy benefits from both technological and creative endeavour, the government will want to avoid alienating either side,” she said.

Dennis added: “The apparent collapse of this aspect of Getty’s case serves to demonstrate just how difficult it can be for a party alleging misuse of their copyright works in the context of AI to make good their case. If a company the size of Getty cannot do it, it raises the question of whether smaller content creators, who represent the bulk of the UK’s creative industries and also claim to be losing out on royalty income, can do so. Today’s news will only strengthen the resolve of those who want to subject AI developers to transparency obligations around the material they use to train their systems to enable fair licensing arrangements to be put in place which reflect the value both financially and culturally of the creative works used.”