Getty Images v Stability AI

The UK High Court has ruled in Getty Images v Stability AI, dismissing copyright claims but upholding limited trade mark infringement relating to watermarks generated by Stable Diffusion models. Our article, written by our Intellectual Property team, explores the key trade mark findings, with part two to follow on the copyright claims.

The UK High Court, in November 2025, delivered its long-awaited judgment in the case of Getty Images v Stability AI. The UK High Court ultimately dismissed the copyright infringement claims made by Getty Images against AI developer Stability AI. However, the Court upheld some of its trade mark infringement claims. In this article, we consider the key takeaways from the trade mark infringement aspects of the case, which succeeded in part. Our second article on the decision considers the copyright infringement claims filed in the proceedings.

Background

The case related to Stability AI’s Stable Diffusion, which is a type of generative AI. At the heart of the case was Getty’s desire to protect “the lifeblood” of its business i.e. millions of high-quality photographic images of, among other things:

• World events
• Sporting moments
• Celebrities
• Architecture, and
• Nature and travel

These photographic images had been created over many years by hundreds of thousands of photographers. Getty alleged that in order to develop and train Stable Diffusion, Stability had scraped millions of visual assets from Getty’s websites without consent. Getty also argued that Stability used those images unlawfully to train and develop a number of versions of Stable Diffusion. Although Getty withdrew several of its claims originally pleaded prior to trial, it maintained a core allegation. It argued that normal use of Stable Diffusion by users in the UK will generate synthetic images bearing Getty’s own trade marks i.e. by reproducing watermarks, contrary to UK trade mark law. In addition, it argued that this conduct amounted to an actionable misrepresentation under the tort of passing off.

Trade mark infringement

Getty claimed that Stability had affixed watermarks identical or similar to Getty’s registered UK trade marks for GETTY IMAGES (word and logo marks) and ISTOCK (word marks). The watermarks were applied to the synthetic image outputs of Stable Diffusion. Getty also claimed Stability used those watermarks in connection with services, namely the provision of synthetic image outputs. The preliminary question in the case, the Court noted, required Getty to establish on balance that at least one user in the UK had generated a watermark. For many of the versions of Stability’s models, the Court held that there was “not one jot of evidence” on which it could “properly find on balance” that watermarks had ever been generated in the UK by real-world users.

That was not the case for the v1 Models. In particular, Stable Diffusion Model v1 was accessed through the Dream Studio platform, however this applied only to version v1.4. The Model was also accessible via the developer platform and version v2 of the Model.

Stochastic nature

The Court noted that a further complicating aspect of the trade mark infringement claim was that due to the stochastic nature of the Models, no two images will be exactly the same. The Court held that when watermarks do appear, they will appear in different forms. For example, they may;

• Be extremely distorted and/or blurred bearing little resemblance to the registered trade marks
• Bear only a very loose resemblance to the registered marks, or
• Look similar, or very similar to the Getty UK trade marks

To illustrate this point, the Court referred to the image below. It noted that Getty had conceded that no claim for trade mark infringement arose for this image, as the watermark had become too distorted and blurred.

Commercial communication

Getty argued that Stability was using the signs for its own commercial communication. In other words, the output image that bears the watermark is Stability’s commercial communication. Getty said this is because the image is generated by Stability’s Model. Getty suggested this involved more than merely storing the output images. Instead, it involved offering the service of generating the images and putting those images on to the market. It argued that the case involved active behaviour and control by Stability as:

1. Stability trained the Model
2. Stability could have filtered out watermarked images in order to ensure that its Model did not produce outputs bearing watermarks
3. Stability made the Model available to consumers via GitHub, Hugging Face, the Developer Platform and Dream Studio, and
4. Stability was the entity making the communication bearing the relevant signs

The UK Court agreed with these points and concluded that Stability is certainly not “passive.” Rather, it is the only entity with any control in any meaningful sense of the word over the generation of watermarks on synthetic images.

Trade mark infringement

The Court concluded that there was evidence of output images generated by v1 and v2 of Stable Diffusion, which included the Getty Images logo. Stability was running a business in the UK, the Court held, and providing Stable Diffusion to consumers as part of that business. The signs were affixed to synthetic images generated by customers owing to the functionality of the Model, and the Model itself was dependent upon its training data. Therefore, the Court noted, that Stability “offers and puts synthetic images bearing the signs on the market” and this was Stability’s commercial communication to the consumer. Ultimately, the average consumer using Dream Studio may interpret the sign as designating Getty Images as the undertaking of origin of the images.

Specific trade mark findings

More specifically, on the trade mark infringement claims, the UK High Court concluded that:

• There was double identity infringement, i.e. identical marks and identical services, by Stability regarding iStock watermarks generated by users of v1. This finding was based specifically on the example watermark shown on the below Spaceship image. All other claims of double identity infringement were rejected.

• Getty also successfully established its case of infringement under section 10(2) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 regarding the use of the ISTOCK mark on the v1 Model, and the Getty Images Mark on the v2 Model. However, this was only regarding the above Spaceship image and the following two images:

• Getty’s claim of detriment to distinctive character and dilution of its trade marks failed. This was because the Court had no means of determining the scale of the generation of infringing watermarks by v1 and v2. Also there was no evidence of any change in economic behaviour by the users of those Models provided.
• Getty’s claims of detriment to reputation / tarnishment also failed primarily due to the lack of evidence of real-life examples. There was also no evidence of a change in economic behaviour of users.
• Getty’s claims for unfair advantage failed as this was not specified in any detail. In particular, the High Court noted that it was difficult to see how the reputation and distinctive character would be transferred to Stability by reason of their use of the signs. This was because, in the Court’s view, the average consumer would not wish to use the images generated.
• The passing off claim was not considered further, as neither party had made additional submissions on it.

If this issue arose in Ireland, similar factors would be considered. The Irish Trade Marks Act 1996 (as amended) contains provisions similar to the UK’s Trade Marks Act 1994. As matters stand and subject to the outcome of an appeal of the UK High Court decision, it currently has persuasive authority before Irish Courts.

For more information on this judgment, please read part 2 of our analysis of the case which considers the copyright infringement elements of the case:

Getty Images v Stability AI Part II: UK High Court rejects copyright infringement claim

For further information and expert advice on how best to protect your intellectual property rights, please contact a member of our award-winning Intellectual Property team.

The content of this article is provided for information purposes only and does not constitute legal or other advice.