Decisions · Court · United Kingdom

Getty Images v. Stability AI

High Court of England and Wales · 2025-11-04 · First instance · Ongoing

Later historyPermission to appeal granted (December 2025).

[2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch)

Is a trained model a copy of its training works?

Closer to not a copy

Model weights not an infringing copy; training claim not decided

Why hereCloser to 'not a copy', not at the pole: the court held that a model which does not store or reproduce the works, and never has, is not an infringing copy. That was on the evidence before it; the judgment does not decide the position of a model that memorises.

AI training and copyright

Can AI be trained on protected works?

No position

Training claim dropped: training took place outside the UK

Why hereNot placed: Getty dropped the training claim because the training took place outside the UK, so the court did not rule on whether training is lawful.

Holding

Getty dropped its main training claim because training happened outside the UK. The court found the Stable Diffusion model was not an 'infringing copy' of Getty's images, because the model does not store or reproduce them, though an intangible model can be an 'article'. It made 'extremely limited' trademark findings over watermarks on early model versions. Getty was granted permission to appeal in December 2025.

Where training happens matters. The UK has not yet ruled on whether training on protected works in the UK is allowed.

Principles it bears on

Arguable linkAn AI system that memorises or reproduces protected works in its outputs can infringe.

Sources

Primary source ↗Summary ↗

This record

Data as of 2026-10-21.

Drafted with AI assistance and checked against the sources linked above; not yet reviewed by a lawyer. Methodology

Changes

2026-10-20Moved from the training question to the new question on the model as a copy. Its training claim was dropped (training took place outside the UK), so it no longer counts as a position on training.