In 2023, Getty Images launched legal proceedings against Stability Artificial Intelligence, the developer of the text-to-image generative Artificial Intelligence model Stable Diffusion. Getty alleged that Stability had infringed its copyright and trade mark rights by using millions of Getty’s images to train the model without authorisation, and argued that the trained model itself amounted to an “infringing copy” under UK law. On 4 November 2025, Mrs Justice Joanna Smith DBE largely found in favour of Stability Artificial Intelligence, dismissing Getty’s copyright claims but upholding a limited finding of trade mark infringement.
The Court rejected Getty’s core allegation that the Stable Diffusion model amounted to secondary copyright infringement under sections 22, 23 and 27 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA). Justice Smith found that Artificial Intelligence model weights, the statistical parameters determining how the model processes data, do not store or reproduce the visual information contained in training images. Stable Diffusion could not be treated as an infringing copy under the CDPA, and its distribution in the UK did not amount to secondary copyright infringement.
The Court also held that “article” is broad enough to include intangible information such as software or Artificial Intelligence model weights, particularly where such copies can be stored electronically in cloud computing. That interpretation may diverge from EU law, which traditionally limits secondary infringement provisions to tangible objects. The ruling gives developers some comfort where a model does not store or reproduce protected works, but it does not resolve whether copying copyrighted works during model training amounts to primary copyright infringement, because Getty withdrew that claim after it could not produce sufficient evidence that training occurred in the United Kingdom.
Getty’s trade mark claim produced a narrower win. It was held that Stability, as the party with meaningful control over output generation, was responsible for trade mark use under sections 10(1) and 10(2) of the Trade Marks Act 1994. The Court found limited infringement in relation to earlier model versions where watermarks appeared with sufficient clarity to cause consumer confusion. The infringement was limited because later versions reduced watermark reproduction.
Businesses developing or deploying generative Artificial Intelligence tools are urged to document model architecture, map where training occurs, and maintain output filters that prevent watermarks, logos and other protected marks from appearing. Content owners should tighten contracts and licensing terms for Artificial Intelligence training use, monitor outputs for unauthorised brand reproduction, and consider jurisdiction strategically. Businesses using generative Artificial Intelligence in marketing, design or internal workflows should vet vendor contracts and adopt internal compliance policies for checking outputs and documenting risk controls.
