Stability AI Wins Round in Court, Getty' Legal Claims Fail

Stability AI Wins Round in Court, Getty Images' Claims Fall Short

Written by Aaron S.,

Editor-In-Chief

Last Updated: November 06, 2025

Key Takeaways

The UK High Court largely sided with Stability AI, but did not resolve bigger legal questions around AI and copyright use;
Getty’s claim over its watermark was limited, as the court found no proof of UK users generating infringing content;
The court ruled that Stable Diffusion doesn’t store or copy original images, so it does not count as an "infringing copy" under UK law.

Stop overpaying - start transferring money with Ogvio. Join the waitlist & grab early Rewards NOW! 🎁

BITDEGREE IN YOUR SOCIAL FEED

A recent decision from the High Court in the UK has produced a mixed result in the legal battle between Getty Images and Stability AI.

While the ruling mostly supported Stability AI, it left several important legal questions about artificial intelligence (AI) and copyright unanswered.

Getty Images brought the case in 2023. It claimed that Stability AI’s image-generating system, known as Stable Diffusion, used its protected content without permission.

Best Crypto Analysis Indicators Explained (Beginner-Friendly Animation)

Did you know?

Want to get smarter & wealthier with crypto?

Subscribe - We publish new crypto explainer videos every week!

Getty Images also argued that Stable Diffusion included its watermark in its outputs, which violated their trademark rights.

The court agreed that Getty Images’ watermark appeared in some images generated by Stable Diffusion. However, Judge Joanna Smith noted that this issue was very narrow and did not indicate misuse.

Getty Images' case was weakened because they could not show that anyone in the UK had actually used the tool to generate watermarked content.

Getty Images also argued that the AI system itself was a copy of their images, which would amount to secondary infringement. However, the court found that since Stabile Diffusion does not duplicate the original images, it does not meet the legal definition of an "infringing copy" under the UK’s Copyright, Designs and Patents Act of 1988.

Justice Smith explained that while digital tools like AI models may be intangible, they still need to meet specific conditions to be considered unlawful copies. In this case, Stable Diffusion did not qualify.

Recently, Perplexity criticized Amazon after receiving a legal notice asking the company to stop users from making purchases through its AI browser, Comet. What did the AI firm say? Read the full story.