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
A federal judge just gutted the core assumption of AI copyright law. Forget fair use. The pivotal ruling hinged on a more foundational truth: an AI model does not contain a single copy of any protected work. That simple, devastating phrase changes everything.
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.
Now consider the Raine lawsuit. This case is about a death. The family of 16-year-old Adam Raine alleges OpenAI deliberately weakened ChatGPT's safety filters to drive usage, a choice they say led to tragedy.
A ruling against OpenAI would forge a terrifying precedent, shifting liability from intellectual property to a direct duty of care for human safety. The legal map is fracturing. One path narrows copyright claims to nothing.
The other opens a chasm of personal liability. The law is guessing in the dark.
Related Reading
Policy & Regulation Grammarly faces class-action suit over AI ‘Expert Review’ feature
Policy & Regulation Claude Mythos highlights EU AI safety gaps, says researcher Caroli
Policy & Regulation After ditching AI fitness apps and a Fitbit, I return to Peloton classes
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.
Further Reading
- Getty Images v Stability AI: English High Court Rejects Secondary Copyright Claim — Latham & Watkins LLP
- Getty Images v Stability AI: Key IP Issues in AI Litigation — Simmons & Simmons
- UK High Court: landmark decision on copyright and Gen AI — Hogan Lovells
- Getty Images issues statement on ruling in Stability AI UK litigation — Getty Images Newsroom
