Getty vs Stability AI: a landmark lawsuit on copyright and artificial intelligence.

Gianpaolo Todisco

On June 9, 2025, a highly significant lawsuit between Getty Images and Stability AI began in the High Court in London. This is one of the first legal battles worldwide on the use of copyrighted material to “train” generative artificial intelligence models (such as Stable Diffusion).

Getty's allegations

Getty claims that Stability AI downloaded millions of images from its archive without a license and used them to train Stable Diffusion. The main allegations include:

  • Copyright infringement, for unauthorized use of protected works.

  • Trademark infringement, as the AI allegedly generated images with Getty's watermark.

  • Database rights infringement, as Getty also claims rights to its extensive photo archive.

Stability AI's defense

London-based Stability AI rejects the allegations. It argues that the training took place on servers in the US and is therefore not subject to UK jurisdiction. It also claims that the system promotes creative innovation and freedom of expression and that very few of the images generated actually resemble the protected originals.

Legal and cultural impact

The trial will last several weeks, with a final decision expected later in 2025. Lawyers agree that this ruling could:

  • Define the legal boundaries of the use of protected content in AI.

  • Influence negotiations for commercial licenses for material to creators.

  • Determine the attractiveness of the UK as a hub for AI development, based on the rigor of copyright protections.

Evolution of the litigation

Internationally, Getty has already filed a similar lawsuit in the US in February 2023, seeking damages of up to $1.7 billion for over 11,000 images. Recently, however, Getty dropped some of its direct copyright infringement claims in the UK, focusing on secondary claims and trademark rights.

The legal landscape is becoming more complex: at the same time, a judge in California ruled that training Anthropic models on potentially pirated books does not constitute copyright infringement. All this complicates the prospects for creatives seeking legal protection for their work.