Editorial illustration for Getty's AI Lawsuit Fails: Court Dismisses Watermark and Copy Claims
Getty's AI Copyright Lawsuit Dismissed by Court
Court rules AI model contains no copies, limits Getty watermark claim
In a landmark legal battle that could reshape AI training practices, Getty Images suffered a significant setback in its lawsuit against an AI company. The case hinged on complex claims of copyright and trademark infringement, challenging how machine learning models incorporate visual data.
The courtroom showdown centered on whether AI training constitutes copying or represents a major use of existing images. Getty had aggressively pursued legal action, hoping to establish clear boundaries for AI image generation.
But the judicial ruling delivered a surprising blow to the stock photography giant. Judges systematically dismantled Getty's arguments, finding critical weaknesses in their legal strategy.
The decision carries profound implications for how AI companies can source and process training data. It signals a potentially more permissive legal environment for machine learning developers seeking to build sophisticated visual models.
Importantly, the court's reasoning would soon reveal just how narrowly Getty's claims were rejected - and what that means for the future of AI image generation.
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.
The Getty lawsuit reveals the complex legal terrain surrounding AI image generation. Courts seem skeptical of broad copyright claims when AI models don't directly reproduce training images.
This case highlights how technical nuances can dramatically shape legal outcomes. The court's specific finding that "no copies" exist in the AI model suggests traditional copyright frameworks struggle to address machine learning technologies.
Getty's strategic retreat from key copyright claims is particularly telling. By dropping territorial training arguments, the company tacitly acknowledged the challenge of establishing clear legal boundaries in AI development.
The limited trademark infringement finding adds another layer of complexity. Some AI-generated images apparently still carried Getty's watermarks, creating a narrow legal foothold for potential future claims.
Ultimately, this lawsuit underscores how rapidly evolving technology constantly tests existing legal definitions. Intellectual property law appears to be playing catch-up with artificial intelligence's capabilities.
These early legal skirmishes will likely set precedents for how courts interpret machine learning's relationship to existing creative works. But for now, the landscape remains uncertain.
Related Reading
Policy & Regulation Tree search framework achieves 98.7% success on docs where vector search fails
Policy & Regulation LexisNexis CEO: AI now core legal infrastructure, like email or word processor
Policy & Regulation California enacts first U.S. regulations for AI companion chatbots
From Archives Embedding policy enforcement in query engines secures AI agents’ data access
From Archives Data Center Watch Unfunded, Separate from 10a Labs' AI Risk Services
Common Questions Answered
How did the court rule on Getty Images' copyright claims against the AI company?
The court dismissed Getty's copyright claims, specifically ruling that there are 'no copies in the model' of AI-generated images. This decision suggests that AI training does not constitute direct copying of original images, which could have significant implications for future AI copyright litigation.
What trademark issues did Getty raise in its lawsuit against the AI company?
Getty claimed that some AI-generated images still bore its watermark, attempting to pursue trademark infringement. The court found only limited trademark infringement, which was not sufficient to support Getty's broader legal claims against the AI company.
Why did Getty drop its key copyright-infringement claims related to training location?
By dropping the copyright-infringement claims tied to training location, Getty potentially acknowledged the complexity of establishing territorial boundaries in AI training processes. This strategic retreat highlights the challenging legal landscape surrounding AI image generation and copyright law.