IL-2023-000007 - [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch)

Fecha: 04-Nov-2025

CONCLUSION

(L)

CONCLUSION

757.

In summary, although Getty Images succeed (in part) in their Trade Mark Infringement Claim, my findings are both historic and extremely limited in scope. The Secondary Infringement Claim fails.

758.

In a little more detail, my findings on the key issues are as follows:

Stability bears no direct liability for any tortious acts alleged in these proceedings arising by reason of the release of v1.x Models via the CompVis GitHub and CompVis Hugging Face pages.

ii)

the question of trade mark infringement arises only:

in respect of the generation of Getty Images watermarks* and iStock watermarks* by v1.x Models (in so far as they were accessed via DreamStudio and/or the Developer Platform);

in respect of the generation of Getty Images watermarks* by v2.x Models.

iii)

There is no evidence of a single user in the UK generating either Getty Images or iStock watermarks* using SD XL and v1.6 Models. Thus no question of trade mark infringement arises in respect of these Models and that claim, in so far as it relates to them, is dismissed.

iv)

As to Getty Images’ claim under section 10(1) TMA:

Getty Images succeed in respect of iStock watermarks* generated by users of v1.x (in so far as the Models were accessed via DreamStudio and/or the Developer Platform) in that infringement of the ISTOCK Marks pursuant to section 10(1) TMA has been established. This success is however based specifically on the example watermarks* shown on the Dreaming Image and the Spaceships Image – the latter having been generated by Model v1.2. Given the way in which the case has been advanced, it is impossible to know how many (or even on what scale) watermarks* have been generated in real life that would fall into a similar category.

Getty Images fail in respect of Getty Images watermarks*, there being no evidence of infringement of the Getty Images Marks under section 10(1) TMA. That claim is dismissed.

As to Getty Images’ claim under section 10(2) TMA:

Getty Images succeed in respect of Getty Images watermarks* generated by users of v2.x in that infringement of the Getty Images Marks pursuant to section 10(2) TMA has been established. This success is based specifically on the example watermark* on the First Japanese Temple Garden Image, generated by Model v2.1.

Again, it is impossible to know how many (or even on what scale) watermarks* have been generated in real life that would fall into a similar category.

vi)

Getty Images’ claim under section 10(3) TMA is dismissed.

vii)

For reasons I have explained, I have declined to address Getty Images’ allegation of passing off.

viii)

Getty Images’ claim of secondary infringement of copyright is dismissed. Although an “article” may be an intangible object for the purposes of the CDPA, an AI model such as Stable Diffusion which does not store or reproduce any Copyright Works (and has never done so) is not an “infringing copy” such that there is no infringement under sections 22 and 23 CDPA.

ix)

As to other remaining issues:

On copyright subsistence/ownership, Getty Images have failed to make out title to the copyright in SOCI Works A3 and A4, but have established their title to the copyright in SOCI Works A9, A10 and A11.

On the Licensing Issue:

Sample Licences #2, 3, 10, 11, 13, 30 and 32 are not exclusive licences under section 92 CDPA;

ii)

Sample Licences #17, #19, #34-38 are exclusive licences under section 92 CDPA.

I make no finding as to the number of Visual Assets or Copyright Works used in training Stable Diffusion.

This is not a case in which I consider an award of additional damages to be justified.

759.

Any consequential matters arising in light of this judgment will be dealt with at a hearing in due course.