KI-Firma gewinnt Urteil des Obersten Gerichtshofs nach Urheberrechtsklage einer Fotoagentur
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2025/nov/04/stabilty-ai-high-court-getty-images-copyright
Von F0urLeafCl0ver
KI-Firma gewinnt Urteil des Obersten Gerichtshofs nach Urheberrechtsklage einer Fotoagentur
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2025/nov/04/stabilty-ai-high-court-getty-images-copyright
Von F0urLeafCl0ver
4 Kommentare
surely the use case of intellectual property should be considered sacrosanct per the wishes of the creators of those intellectual properties.
I would be curious to know how much getty settled out of court on this.
Edit; note the petulant tone of the vacuous AI supporters.
Also, because of malicious use of Reddit blocking/deletion procedures, I’m unable to respond to or even view many of the comments here.
Pathetic.
The judgment is [here](https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2025/2863.html) for those interested (*Getty Images (US) Inc & Ors v Stability AI Ltd*). I wouldn’t be surprised if it gets appealed, given how significant this sort of case might be.
From what I can tell (disclaimer about it being a long, technical judgment that I only skimmed) the key results of the *copyright* side of things (there were also trade mark-related claims) was that while Stability AI did train their models on Getty Images (which would be a breach of copyright) they didn’t do so in the UK, so there was no primary copyright claim.
In terms of images produced based on that trained data (with the same disclaimer as above), Getty couldn’t prove that any particular image generated by the model was a derivative work of any particular Getty image. Which is an interesting problem – the model waters down their images so much, and combines so many together, that it is difficult for Getty to prove copying.
As I understand it some copyright cases elsewhere have been going the other way (or at least being settled), so it will be interesting to see what happens here. If this ruling stands, and I’m reading it correctly, provided people train their models outside the UK they can use as much copyrighted content as they like (and the more the better, to water specific images down).
AI is ripping EVERY artist off, from poets to novelists, painters, photographers, illustrators, voice actors and musicians. AI is not intelligent and creative. It is just mashing up all human creative output to create profit for tech. IP does not belong to AI or its creators. It belongs to the people whose material has been stolen.
I’m going to go against the sentiment here and argue that AI models should be allowed to be trained on copyrighted material.
If an artist went to an art gallery, took photos of the paintings there and then went home and used those to inspire their next work, most people would say that that’s reasonable and shouldn’t be illegal.
This is basically what AI models are doing, albeit at a vast scale, however the principle should be the same. Copyright law should never be used to prohibit the creation of new works.
Of course, it is an entirely different matter if an AI model creates a near copy of an existing work, but that is not what has happened in this case.