Court Considers Copyright Infringement and Territorial Nature of Copyright in Getty Images v Stability AI Case

Citation: [2023] EWHC 3090 (Ch)
Judgment on

Introduction

In the case of Getty Images (US) Inc & Ors v Stability AI Ltd, the court was presented with multiple applications concerning alleged copyright infringement, database right infringement, trade mark infringement, and passing off by Stability AI Ltd due to their operation of the generative artificial intelligence model known as “Stable Diffusion.” The case raised significant legal issues surrounding the interpretation of copyright infringement in relation to both tangible and intangible articles, the territorial nature of copyright, and the appropriateness of granting summary judgment or permitting amendments to claims.

Key Facts

Getty Images Group alleged that Stability AI Ltd had infringed their copyright by using millions of images from Getty’s database to train their AI model without consent, which in turn generated infringing images. Stability AI Ltd countered, arguing that the training of their AI model did not occur in the UK, thus not infringing UK copyright laws, and that software distributed online cannot be considered an “article” under UK copyright legislation for the purposes of secondary infringement.

The legal principles considered by Mrs Justice Joanna Smith were:

  1. Summary Judgment: A claim may be dismissed without a trial if there’s no real prospect of success and there’s no compelling reason for a dispute to be settled at trial. The court is cautious in rejecting claims without a trial, ensuring that the evidence that might be present at trial is taken into account.

  2. Territoriality of Copyright: The territorial nature of copyright was affirmed, acknowledging that copyright is a legal right arising from national legislation and cannot assume an international copyright.

  3. Statutory Interpretation: The case posed a novel question about the interpretation of the term “article” in the context of copyright law, particularly whether it includes intangible as well as tangible articles.

  4. Amendment of Claims: The court has a broad discretion to allow amendments to claims, provided that the amendments have a real prospect of success and do not add incoherence to the case.

Outcomes

  1. Training and Development Claim: The court dismissed the application for summary judgment on the Training and Development Claim, finding that there were reasonable grounds to believe that a fuller investigation would be needed to resolve the factual discrepancies pertaining to whether the AI model’s training occurred in the UK.

  2. Secondary Infringement Claim: The application for summary judgment on claims of secondary infringement arising from the sale and distribution of the AI software was also dismissed. The court deferred a detailed interpretation of what constitutes an “article” for the purposes of copyright infringement, recognizing it as a complex legal question better suited for trial after full examination of the facts.

  3. Amendment Application: The court permitted the amendment of claims regarding the AI’s image-to-image feature, judging claimed amendments to have a real prospect of success and to be adequately particularized for trial.

Conclusion

The High Court’s decision in Getty Images (US) Inc & Ors v Stability AI Ltd underscores the complexities surrounding copyright infringement in the digital age, particularly concerning generative AI technology. Mrs Justice Joanna Smith’s reluctance to grant summary judgment showcases the court’s diligent approach, ensuring that potentially novel interpretations of law receive the thorough examination they demand. The case’s progression to trial will provide an opportunity for the UK legal system to address the intricate challenges posed by new technologies in relation to established copyright principles.