Stay connected with HLK
Keep up-to-date with the latest IP insights and updates as well as upcoming webinars and seminars via HLK’s LinkedIn page, or simply subscribe to our updates.
This week sees the start of arguably one of the most important Court cases ever to be heard in the UK concerning copyright law – Getty Images v Stability AI. The outcome may have profound consequences for those engaged in either the creative industries or the development and use of generative AI.
Get in touch
The Parties
Stability AI develop and supply generative AI models, including Stable Diffusion, a text-to-image model which generates synthetic images based on user text or image prompts.
Getty Images is a content provider, which licences third parties the right to use images (e.g. photographs and illustrations), video content, data and music controlled by Getty.
The Dispute
The proceedings contain allegations of copyright infringement, database right infringement, registered trade mark infringement and passing off.
Getty claims, among other things, that, for the purpose of developing and training Stable Diffusion, and without being licensed by Getty, Stability unlawfully copied and processed millions of images (plus associated captions, key words and other data), in which copyright subsists and in respect of which Getty owns rights (the “Training and Development Claim“).
Further, that the output of Stable Diffusion, in the form of synthetic images accessed by users in the United Kingdom, is also itself infringing, in that it reproduces a substantial part of the said copyright works and (the “Output Claim“).
Regarding the Training and Development Claim, Stability says, among other things, that the activities complained of took place outside the UK and thus are not within the territorial scope of UK law and jurisdiction.
Regarding the Output Claim, Stability say that the user causes any infringement (if any) alone, whose text or image prompts cause Stable Diffusion to generate the synthetic images in question. Further, in any event, any such output would be a pastiche of any of the copyright works in respect of which Getty owns rights – and UK law permits fair dealing with copyright works for the purpose of pastiche.
What are the wider implications?
Depending on what the Court decides (and any judgment is likely to be appealed to the Court of Appeal and possibility that appeal judgment to the Supreme Court), creators of copyright works may consider their works are not adequately protected in the UK against AI developers and users – particularly if they are free to use the same without paying UK copyright licence fees to the creators and especially if the output content created by the AI competes with a creator’s original copyright work.
Alternatively, if AI developers and/or users are required to pay such licence fees, this may discourage the development of AI models and systems in the UK (something the current UK Government does not want to see), especially if developers can develop them in other jurisdictions which do not require the payment of licence fees. Alternatively, it could result in AI developers passing on these costs, through increased charges imposed on those using their technology in the UK.
All of this comes in the context of the UK Government facing pressure from both the UK creative industries and AI developers to urgently put legislation before Parliament to reform the UK’s current statutory IP laws, which were passed before modern generative AI had been developed. What the Court decides could impact on what the Government does (or does not do) next.
HLK will be following the case closely and will report on any significant developments as and when they arise.
Need assistance?
This is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. Should you require advice on this or any other topic then please contact hlk@hlk-ip.com or your usual HLK advisor.