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

An AI model provider may be responsible for trade mark use where the model’s training data and model weights cause synthetic outputs to bear signs resembling registered marks. The assessment is highly fact-sensitive and depends on the particular output, sign, access mechanism, average consumer and surrounding context.

Sections 10(1) and 10(2) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 were infringed in limited instances involving iStock and Getty Images watermarks. Section 10(3) was not infringed because dilution, tarnishment and unfair advantage were not established on the evidence. An AI model which has never stored or reproduced the relevant copyright works is not an “infringing copy” under section 27(3) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

The claim concerned Stable Diffusion, a generative AI model developed and distributed by Stability AI. Getty Images originally alleged primary and secondary copyright infringement, database right infringement, trade mark infringement and passing off.

Before closing submissions, the claims concerning training and development, model outputs and database rights were abandoned. The remaining issues concerned synthetic outputs bearing Getty Images or iStock watermarks, alleged passing off, secondary copyright infringement, copyright ownership, licensing and additional damages.

The court considered whether Stability was responsible for the release and operation of particular model versions, whether watermark-bearing outputs constituted trade mark use, and whether Stable Diffusion was an intangible “article” and “infringing copy” for the purposes of sections 22, 23 and 27 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

1. Responsibility for v1.x. Stability was not directly liable for alleged tortious acts arising from release of v1.x through CompVis GitHub and Hugging Face pages. Mere collaboration, assistance, funding, publicity or provision of computing resources did not establish direct liability. Stability was responsible for the other relevant release mechanisms and model versions.
2. Trade mark use. Stability’s role went beyond creating technical conditions for users’ conduct. It trained or controlled the relevant models, determined significant features of their training data, supplied the model weights or hosted the inference service, and used filtering systems. The generation of a watermark was therefore attributable to Stability’s commercial communication. The average consumer could perceive a material link between the synthetic image, Stability and Getty Images.
3. Sections 10(1) and 10(2). The analysis was specific to each sign and image. iStock watermarks generated by v1.x users through the Developer Platform or v1.4 through DreamStudio infringed under sections 10(1) and 10(2). A Getty Images watermark on the First Japanese Temple Garden Image infringed under section 10(2). The Getty Images signs relied upon were not shown to be identical for section 10(1). No infringement was established for SD XL or v1.6.
4. Section 10(3). Dilution failed because there was no reliable evidence of a proliferation of infringing signs or a change, or serious likelihood of change, in economic behaviour. Tarnishment was not established because there was no real-world evidence of watermarks appearing on pornographic, violent, propaganda or deepfake outputs. Unfair advantage was not established because Stability did not intend, and did not objectively appear, to benefit from unwanted watermarks.
5. Secondary copyright infringement. An electronic copy stored in an intangible medium can be an “article” and an “infringing copy”. However, Stable Diffusion itself was not an infringing copy. Its final model weights had never contained or stored copies of the Copyright Works. The fact that training involved reproductions of those works did not make the resulting model an infringing copy under section 27(3) CDPA.
6. Copyright and licensing. Getty Images failed to establish title to SOCI Works A3 and A4 but established title to A9-A11. Sample Licences #2, 3, 10, 11, 13, 30 and 32 were not exclusive licences under section 92 CDPA. Sample Licences #17, #19 and #34-38 were exclusive licences.
7. Disposition. The trade mark claim succeeded only in the limited respects identified above. The secondary infringement, section 10(3), additional damages and remaining claims were dismissed or not determined.

First instance judgment. The judgment records earlier procedural decisions, including [2023] EWHC 3090 (Ch), [2025] EWHC 38 (Ch) and [2025] EWHC 1450 (Ch). It also records a Court of Appeal decision, [2025] EWCA Civ 749, concerning the attempted pleading of CSAM allegations.