Court rules AI model contains no copies, limits Getty watermark claim
In 2025 Getty Images found itself locked in a courtroom battle with an AI startup over the data that powered the startup’s image-generation tool. Getty says the model was trained on thousands of its photos, and the AI sometimes spits out pictures still bearing Getty’s watermark - a detail that, if true, could run afoul of both copyright and trademark rules. The case really boils down to two points: does the algorithm keep literal copies of the source images, and can a stray watermark count as trademark infringement?
The technology is impressive, but the legal questions are anything but straightforward. Courts seem to be still figuring out how classic IP concepts fit with machine-learning pipelines, so Getty’s suit feels like a litmus test for those doctrines. If the judge sides with Getty, it would likely force companies to rethink how they protect visual assets from generative AI, and it might keep watermarking on the table as a defense.
I guess the ruling could echo far beyond this single dispute.
The court agreed, ruling that there are "no copies in the model." Getty also raised trademark claims, saying some AI-generated images still bore Getty's watermark; the court found limited trademark infringement. Crucially, Getty dropped its key copyright-infringement claims tied to where training happened, which underscores how territorial issues--where training or scraping occurs--may shape future AI copyright litigation. Raine vs OpenAI The family of 16-year-old Adam Raine filed a wrongful-death lawsuit against OpenAI in August, alleging that the company weakened self-harm guardrails in ChatGPT before launching GPT-4o.
The amended complaint argues OpenAI prioritised user engagement over safety, claiming that ChatGPT responded improperly to Raine's suicidal ideation, and that the company ignored clear risks linked to its AI behaviour. If the court finds OpenAI liable, it could force a reevaluation of how AI platforms incorporate psychological safety by design and whether they owe a duty of care to vulnerable users, especially minors.
Will AI’s legal footing settle soon? The seven cases that popped up this year say probably not. Courts are already sketching borders - sometimes tight, sometimes oddly wide - around how generative models fit into existing IP rules.
In the Getty fight, the judge said there were “no copies in the model,” so the trademark claim boiled down to a few images that still bore the watermark. Getty’s move to drop its main copyright-infringement claim hints that the line is still blurry. At the same time, Disney and Universal’s suit against Midjourney adds another twist, suggesting big studios are still probing what training data they can use without permission.
Each ruling leaves a lot up in the air about how enforcement will work and what training practices are allowed. The 2025 vibe feels more like step-by-step clarification than a big overhaul. We’ll have to keep an eye on how these precedents mesh, especially as new lawsuits appear.
Whether the decisions will curb risky data gathering or just shift tactics remains uncertain, but the courts are clearly carving the first shapes of AI governance.
Related Reading
Policy & Regulation X users can no longer tag @grok for image edits; feature not paywalled
Policy & Regulation Dutch Government Assumes Control of Chipmaker Nexperia Amid Tech Tensions
Policy & Regulation Indian IT firms view data platforms as IP amid cloud‑partner reliance
Common Questions Answered
What did the court decide regarding whether the AI model contains literal copies of Getty Images' photographs?
The court ruled that there are “no copies in the model,” meaning the generative algorithm does not store exact replicas of the source pictures. This finding eliminated Getty’s primary copyright‑infringement claim tied to the training process.
How did the court address Getty Images' trademark claim about watermarks appearing in AI‑generated images?
The judge acknowledged that a limited number of outputs still displayed Getty’s watermark and found a narrow trademark‑infringement violation. However, the infringement was confined to only a handful of images rather than a broad violation across all generated content.
Why did Getty Images drop its key copyright‑infringement allegations in the lawsuit?
Getty withdrew its core copyright claims after the court’s determination that the model contained no literal copies, highlighting the importance of territorial and training‑location issues in AI copyright cases. The decision underscores how plaintiffs may reassess strategies when courts focus on the presence of actual copies.
What broader implications does the Getty dispute have for future AI copyright and trademark litigation?
The case illustrates that courts may draw narrow lines around what constitutes infringement, emphasizing factors such as the existence of copies and residual watermarks. It suggests that future disputes will likely hinge on nuanced technical and territorial arguments rather than blanket claims against generative models.