UK High Court AI technology infringement challenges: Getty Images v Stability AI

Stability AI’s reverse summary judgment/strike out application argued that Getty Images' claim must fail because:

1. the training/development activities took place outside the UK, and
2. secondary infringement under sections 22, 23 and 27 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA) only includes dealings with tangible articles (not, for example, making software available on a website).

The High Court noted that evidence concerning the location of Stability AI’s technical and human resources (which Getty Images likely did not have access to) would become available following disclosure.

The High Court declined to decide on the point of law regarding the meaning of “article” in sections 22, 23 and 27 of the CDPA, noting that there are good policy reasons why “articles” might include tangibles and intangibles, but that this ought to be decided by a trial judge upon full, comprehensive arguments from both sides.

On a related note, the House of Lords recently urged the UK Government to take action, as current UK legislation is ill-equipped to deal with generative AI infringement issues.