Getty Images v Stability AI: main copyright claims dropped

Gill Dennis of Pinsent Masons was commenting after Getty confirmed to Pinsent Masons that it was no longer pursuing the claims. Confirmation from Getty followed earlier reports on Wednesday, including from Law.com and World IP Review, on the company's closing submissions in the landmark case.

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.

In its closing submissions, Getty said it had taken "the pragmatic decision to pursue only the claims for trade mark infringement, passing off and secondary infringement of copyright". It cited evidential challenges and a lack of knowledgeable witnesses as factors behind the decision.

Specifically, in relation to its training and development copyright infringement claim, Getty asserted that while "evidence confirms that the acts complained of within this claim did occur", there was "no Stability witness ... able to provide clear evidence as to the development and training process from start to finish – only evidence that these acts occurred outside the jurisdiction".

On the copyright output claim, Getty said Stability AI recently put measures in place so that "the prompts complained of could no longer be used to generate synthetic outputs". This, it added, means "the relief to which Getty Images would be entitled has either now been achieved (e.g. in relation to injunctive relief) or is now limited".

Getty said it has also decided to drop its claim of database rights infringement against Stability AI, which it said was "inherently linked" to its copyright claims.

Stability AI rejects the remaining claims against it, of secondary copyright infringement, trade mark infringement, and of 'passing off'.

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.”

Editor’s Note, 26/06/2025: This article has been updated to include details from Getty's closing submissions.