Getty Images (US) Inc & Ors v Stability AI Ltd

The construction of pleadings is objective. A general reference to pornography can include lawful and unlawful material, including CSAM. However, a general allegation may be narrowed where, following case-management discussion, the claimant agrees to particularise the examples relied upon. Here, the pleaded examples concerned synthetic images of celebrities in states of undress. Read objectively with the amended pleading and Reply, they defined the case advanced and did not extend it to CSAM or other material illegal to possess. Unpleaded allegations could not be introduced for the first time in a trial skeleton.

Getty claimed against Stability for infringement of copyright, database right, trade marks and passing off arising from Stable Diffusion. The present appeal concerned the allegation of trade mark tarnishment under section 10(3) of the Trade Marks Act 1994. Paragraph 57.9 of the Particulars of Claim alleged that Stable Diffusion could create pornography, violent imagery and propaganda. Following a case-management conference, Getty amended the pleading to identify examples of images relied upon. Its trial skeleton later referred expressly to CSAM.

On the first day of trial, Mrs Justice Smith held that the CSAM allegations were not pleaded and could not be deployed. The appeal challenged the objective interpretation of the pleading and the application of principles concerning serious allegations. The central issue was whether the CSAM allegations fell within the existing case after the particularised examples had been added. The High Court decision was reported at [2025] EWHC 1423 (Ch).

Appeal dismissed. Arnold LJ gave the principal judgment, with which Males LJ agreed.

1. The meaning and scope of a pleading are determined objectively by reading the statements of case as a whole, including the purpose and effect of later amendments. Arnold LJ considered that the judge’s view that the general word pornography did not obviously include CSAM was incorrect. In ordinary language, pornography is broad enough to include legal and illegal material, including CSAM. The legal instruments mentioned in the judgment reinforced that conclusion.
2. That conclusion did not determine the appeal. At the case-management conference, Stability sought identification of specific examples on which Getty intended to rely, and Getty accepted that those examples should be pleaded. Getty subsequently amended paragraph 57.9 by referring to particular images. The amendment was objectively understood as pleading examples of the kind of images relied upon, not merely as a procedural safeguard against surprise.
3. The Reply confirmed that the examples concerned artificial images of celebrities in states of undress, involving nudity or particular poses and actions. Those examples fell within the broad concept of pornography but were not CSAM. Accordingly, the amended statements of case did not advance a case based on CSAM or other material illegal to possess. The judge’s conclusion was correct, although Arnold LJ reached it for different reasons. Males LJ emphasised that the examples substantially narrowed the scope of the general allegation and declined to define its precise remaining limits.
4. The contention that the allegations could nevertheless be deployed at trial despite being unpleaded was not advanced as a separate ground of appeal and was not developed. It was therefore unnecessary to determine it. The judge had subsequently refused permission to amend to advance a CSAM case, and that decision was not appealed. The appeal from the order was dismissed.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): In [2025] EWCA Civ 749, the appeal from the order made on the first day of trial was dismissed.
• High Court of Justice, Business and Property Courts, Intellectual Property List (ChD): In [2025] EWHC 1423 (Ch), Mrs Justice Smith held that the CSAM allegations were not pleaded in paragraph 57.9 and could not be deployed at trial.