{ "schemaVersion": "2.0", "generatedAt": "2026-09-12T13:44:57.246Z", "compatibility": { "legacyMatterFieldsRetained": true, "issueDocumentsAreNotTimelineEvents": true }, "matter": { "id": "matter-10", "slug": "getty-images-v-stability-ai-uk", "titleZh": "Getty Images 诉 Stability AI（英国）", "formalName": "Getty Images (US) Inc. and others v. Stability AI Ltd.", "aliases": [ "Getty v. Stability AI UK", "Getty Images UK case" ], "summary": "英国高等法院在 Getty 缩减训练版权请求后，驳回剩余的次要版权侵权主张，仅在非常有限的输出情形认定商标侵权。", "professionalSummary": "[2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) 认为模型权重本身并未存储或复制案涉作品，因而不构成相关“侵权复制品”；商标部分仅针对有限水印输出成立。", "whyItMatters": "裁判展示了地域连接、模型权重性质和输出证据如何限制传统版权请求。", "status": "decided", "primaryTopic": "trademark", "secondaryTopics": [ "copyright" ], "aiRoles": [ "training-data", "model-output" ], "jurisdiction": "英国·英格兰和威尔士高等法院", "industries": [ "图片授权", "生成式 AI" ], "significance": { "legalNovelty": 30, "impactScope": 24, "institutionalLevel": 19, "crossBorder": 9, "sustainedCoverage": 15, "total": 97 }, "highProfile": true, "featured": true, "firstPublishedAt": "2026-07-15", "lastUpdatedAt": "2026-07-16", "proceedings": [ { "id": "matter-10:proceeding-1", "matterId": "matter-10", "formalName": "Getty Images (US) Inc. and others v. Stability AI Ltd.", "identifier": "IL-2023-000007", "identifiers": { "docketNumber": "IL-2023-000007", "neutralCitation": "[2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch)" }, "forum": "High Court of Justice, Business and Property Courts, Intellectual Property List", "jurisdiction": "英国·英格兰和威尔士高等法院", "type": "civil-litigation", "stage": "judgment", "status": "decided", "startedAt": "2025-11-04", "precedentialWeight": "binding", "officialUrl": "https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/getty-images-v-stability-ai/" } ], "events": [ { "id": "matter-10:event-1", "matterId": "matter-10", "proceedingId": "matter-10:proceeding-1", "date": "2025-11-04", "type": "judgment", "title": "高等法院作出审判判决", "summary": "高等法院驳回剩余次要版权侵权主张，并仅在有限生成水印情形认定商标侵权。", "documentIds": [ "matter-10:document-1" ], "claimIds": [ "matter-10:claim-1", "matter-10:claim-procedure", "matter-10:claim-event" ] } ], "documents": [ { "id": "matter-10:document-1", "familyId": "matter-10:family-1", "matterId": "matter-10", "eventId": "matter-10:event-1", "title": "Getty Images v. Stability AI — [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch)", "originalTitle": "Getty Images v. Stability AI — [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch)", "url": "https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/getty-images-v-stability-ai/", "kind": "official-document", "sourceId": "uk-judiciary", "publishedAt": "2025-11-04", "primaryOrSecondary": "primary", "relationship": "independent", "identifiers": { "docketNumber": "IL-2023-000007", "neutralCitation": "[2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch)" }, "language": "en" } ], "claims": [ { "id": "matter-10:claim-1", "matterId": "matter-10", "eventId": "matter-10:event-1", "text": "高等法院驳回剩余次要版权侵权主张，并仅在有限生成水印情形认定商标侵权。", "kind": "legal-holding", "status": "confirmed", "documentIds": [ "matter-10:document-1" ], "asOf": "2025-11-04" }, { "id": "matter-10:claim-procedure", "matterId": "matter-10", "eventId": "matter-10:event-1", "text": "IL-2023-000007 是本站记录的正式程序编号，程序由 High Court of Justice, Business and Property Courts, Intellectual Property List 处理。", "kind": "procedural-fact", "status": "confirmed", "documentIds": [ "matter-10:document-1" ], "asOf": "2025-11-04" }, { "id": "matter-10:claim-event", "matterId": "matter-10", "eventId": "matter-10:event-1", "text": "2025-11-04，案卷记录“高等法院作出审判判决”这一程序节点；该日期与事件由所引直接材料支持。", "kind": "procedural-fact", "status": "confirmed", "documentIds": [ "matter-10:document-1" ], "asOf": "2025-11-04" } ], "caseBackground": { "narrativeZh": "Getty Images 在英国高等法院起诉 Stability AI。Getty 后来缩减训练版权请求，法院在审判后驳回剩余次要版权侵权主张，认定模型权重本身未存储或复制案涉作品；商标责任只在非常有限的水印输出情形成立。", "partiesZh": [ "Getty Images 相关公司", "Stability AI Ltd." ], "aiSystemZh": "Stable Diffusion 模型及其权重", "challengedConductZh": "提供被指与受保护图片及 Getty 水印相关的模型和输出，并主张模型权重属于相关侵权复制品。", "allegedHarmZh": "Getty 主张版权和商标利益受损；法院最终仅在有限水印输出情形支持商标请求。", "proceduralOriginZh": "英国高等法院以 IL-2023-000007 审理，并于 2025 年 11 月 4 日作出 [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) 审判判决。", "claimIds": [ "matter-10:claim-1", "matter-10:claim-procedure", "matter-10:claim-event" ], "documentIds": [ "matter-10:document-1" ] }, "issues": [ { "id": "matter-10:issue-model-weights-copy", "matterId": "matter-10", "titleZh": "模型权重是否为侵权复制品", "questionZh": "Stable Diffusion 模型权重是否存储或复制 Getty 作品，从而构成次要版权侵权所需的侵权复制品？", "contextZh": "争点集中于模型权重本身的技术与法律性质，而不是抽象讨论训练曾否接触作品。", "topic": "copyright", "status": "resolved", "courtTreatmentZh": "高等法院认定模型权重本身没有存储或复制案涉作品，驳回剩余次要版权侵权主张。", "claimIds": [ "matter-10:claim-1" ], "positions": [ { "id": "matter-10:issue-model-weights-copy:position-1", "issueId": "matter-10:issue-model-weights-copy", "sideZh": "Getty Images", "positionZh": "主张模型或其在英国的处理可支持次要版权侵权路径。", "claimIds": [], "documentIds": [] }, { "id": "matter-10:issue-model-weights-copy:position-2", "issueId": "matter-10:issue-model-weights-copy", "sideZh": "Stability AI", "positionZh": "在模型权重未存储或复制案涉作品这一问题上取得有利判决。", "claimIds": [ "matter-10:claim-1" ], "documentIds": [ "matter-10:document-1" ] } ] }, { "id": "matter-10:issue-watermark-outputs", "matterId": "matter-10", "titleZh": "有限水印输出的商标侵权", "questionZh": "特定生成输出出现 Getty 水印时，是否在英国商标法下构成侵权？", "contextZh": "法院没有把所有图像输出视为商标使用，只在证据支持的狭窄输出情形认定责任。", "topic": "trademark", "status": "resolved", "courtTreatmentZh": "法院仅在非常有限的生成水印情形认定商标侵权，其余广泛主张未获支持。", "claimIds": [ "matter-10:claim-1" ], "positions": [ { "id": "matter-10:issue-watermark-outputs:position-1", "issueId": "matter-10:issue-watermark-outputs", "sideZh": "Getty Images", "positionZh": "主张含 Getty 水印的输出会造成未经授权的品牌使用和来源问题。", "claimIds": [], "documentIds": [] }, { "id": "matter-10:issue-watermark-outputs:position-2", "issueId": "matter-10:issue-watermark-outputs", "sideZh": "Stability AI", "positionZh": "除法院确认的有限输出情形外，未被判承担广泛的输出商标责任。", "claimIds": [], "documentIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "matter-10:issue-territorial-training-claim", "matterId": "matter-10", "titleZh": "英国训练请求与地域连接", "questionZh": "Getty 原先提出的训练版权请求在缩减后，判决还解决了多少训练阶段问题？", "contextZh": "原告已缩减训练请求，因此最终判决主要处理剩余次要侵权和商标问题，不能被解读为完整裁断全球训练合法性。", "topic": "copyright", "status": "open", "claimIds": [], "positions": [ { "id": "matter-10:issue-territorial-training-claim:position-1", "issueId": "matter-10:issue-territorial-training-claim", "sideZh": "Getty Images", "positionZh": "在审判前缩减了训练版权请求。", "claimIds": [], "documentIds": [] }, { "id": "matter-10:issue-territorial-training-claim:position-2", "issueId": "matter-10:issue-territorial-training-claim", "sideZh": "Stability AI", "positionZh": "最终判决对其有利的版权结论限于剩余请求和案内证据。", "claimIds": [], "documentIds": [] } ] } ], "decisions": [ { "id": "matter-10:decision-1", "matterId": "matter-10", "proceedingId": "matter-10:proceeding-1", "eventId": "matter-10:event-1", "date": "2025-11-04", "outcomeZh": "英国高等法院驳回剩余次要版权侵权主张，并仅在证据支持的有限水印输出情形认定商标侵权。", "holdingsZh": [ "模型权重本身没有存储或复制案涉 Getty 作品，不是所主张路径下的侵权复制品。", "广泛的次要版权侵权请求不成立。", "少数特定水印输出构成商标侵权，但该结论不覆盖所有输出。" ], "reasoningZh": [ "法院依据案内技术证据区分模型权重与训练作品副本，拒绝把权重本身等同于作品复制。", "商标分析以实际输出证据为界，只对出现相关水印的有限情形认定责任。" ], "reliefZh": "驳回剩余次要版权请求，并就有限水印输出确认商标侵权；当前事件记录未载明另行量化的损害赔偿或独立禁令。", "scopeAndLimitsZh": "判决针对缩减后的英国请求、模型权重和具体水印输出，不裁判全球训练活动，也不决定美国平行案件。", "precedentialWeight": "binding", "appealStatusZh": "当前 Matter 标记为已裁判且未列后续上诉程序；案卷据此展示高等法院判决，但不据缺少记录推断其他程序事实。", "documentIds": [ "matter-10:document-1" ], "claimIds": [ "matter-10:claim-1" ] } ], "issueDocumentLinks": [ { "id": "issue-document-matter-10-matter-10:issue-model-weights-copy-knowledge-generative-ai-meets-copyright", "matterId": "matter-10", "issueId": "matter-10:issue-model-weights-copy", "documentId": "knowledge-generative-ai-meets-copyright", "relationship": "doctrinal-context", "relevanceSummaryZh": "用于概览生成式 AI 版权诉讼的主要请求与尚未形成定论的合理使用问题。 本次规则匹配仅使用本争点文本及其引用主张，命中 3 个确定性争点词；AI 作用分面只用于候选召回。", "viewpoint": "descriptive", "confidence": 0.9500000000000001, "assignedBy": "rule" }, { "id": "news-context-link-matter-10-matter-10:issue-model-weights-copy-news-context-ai-liability-ip-harms", "matterId": "matter-10", "issueId": "matter-10:issue-model-weights-copy", "documentId": "news-context-ai-liability-ip-harms", "relationship": "news-context", "relevanceSummaryZh": "用于比较生成式 AI 供应链中训练复制、近似输出、元数据去除、商标和公开权的不同责任入口。 本次规则匹配仅使用本争点文本及其引用主张，命中 4 个确定性争点词。", "viewpoint": "mixed", "confidence": 0.95, "assignedBy": "rule" }, { "id": "news-context-link-matter-10-matter-10:issue-watermark-outputs-news-context-ai-liability-ip-harms", "matterId": "matter-10", "issueId": "matter-10:issue-watermark-outputs", "documentId": "news-context-ai-liability-ip-harms", "relationship": "news-context", "relevanceSummaryZh": "用于比较生成式 AI 供应链中训练复制、近似输出、元数据去除、商标和公开权的不同责任入口。 本次规则匹配仅使用本争点文本及其引用主张，命中 4 个确定性争点词。", "viewpoint": "mixed", "confidence": 0.95, "assignedBy": "rule" }, { "id": "issue-document-matter-10-matter-10:issue-territorial-training-claim-knowledge-generative-ai-meets-copyright", "matterId": "matter-10", "issueId": "matter-10:issue-territorial-training-claim", "documentId": "knowledge-generative-ai-meets-copyright", "relationship": "doctrinal-context", "relevanceSummaryZh": "用于概览生成式 AI 版权诉讼的主要请求与尚未形成定论的合理使用问题。 本次规则匹配仅使用本争点文本及其引用主张，命中 1 个确定性争点词；AI 作用分面只用于候选召回。", "viewpoint": "descriptive", "confidence": 0.8500000000000001, "assignedBy": "rule" }, { "id": "news-context-link-matter-10-matter-10:issue-territorial-training-claim-news-context-ai-liability-ip-harms", "matterId": "matter-10", "issueId": "matter-10:issue-territorial-training-claim", "documentId": "news-context-ai-liability-ip-harms", "relationship": "news-context", "relevanceSummaryZh": "用于比较生成式 AI 供应链中训练复制、近似输出、元数据去除、商标和公开权的不同责任入口。 本次规则匹配仅使用本争点文本及其引用主张，命中 4 个确定性争点词。", "viewpoint": "mixed", "confidence": 0.95, "assignedBy": "rule" } ] }, "issueDocuments": [ { "link": { "id": "issue-document-matter-10-matter-10:issue-model-weights-copy-knowledge-generative-ai-meets-copyright", "matterId": "matter-10", "issueId": "matter-10:issue-model-weights-copy", "documentId": "knowledge-generative-ai-meets-copyright", "relationship": "doctrinal-context", "relevanceSummaryZh": "用于概览生成式 AI 版权诉讼的主要请求与尚未形成定论的合理使用问题。 本次规则匹配仅使用本争点文本及其引用主张，命中 3 个确定性争点词；AI 作用分面只用于候选召回。", "viewpoint": "descriptive", "confidence": 0.9500000000000001, "assignedBy": "rule" }, "document": { "id": "knowledge-generative-ai-meets-copyright", "familyId": "knowledge-family-generative-ai-meets-copyright", "title": "生成式 AI 遇上版权法", "originalTitle": "Generative AI Meets Copyright", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adi0656", "kind": "academic-research", "sourceId": "science", "publishedAt": "2023-07-14", "author": "Pamela Samuelson", "primaryOrSecondary": "secondary", "relationship": "independent", "identifiers": { "doi": "10.1126/science.adi0656" }, "language": "en", "metadata": { "abstractZh": "概述生成式 AI 训练与输出引发的版权诉讼路径，强调合理使用是逐案判断，正在进行的案件会同时影响开发者、部署者和普通使用者。", "venue": "Science 381(6654): 158–161", "publisher": "American Association for the Advancement of Science", "publicationState": "published", "peerReviewed": false, "paywalled": true }, "stableIdentifier": { "kind": "doi", "value": "10.1126/science.adi0656" }, "legalTopics": [ "copyright" ], "aiRoles": [ "training-data", "model-output" ] } }, { "link": { "id": "news-context-link-matter-10-matter-10:issue-model-weights-copy-news-context-ai-liability-ip-harms", "matterId": "matter-10", "issueId": "matter-10:issue-model-weights-copy", "documentId": "news-context-ai-liability-ip-harms", "relationship": "news-context", "relevanceSummaryZh": "用于比较生成式 AI 供应链中训练复制、近似输出、元数据去除、商标和公开权的不同责任入口。 本次规则匹配仅使用本争点文本及其引用主张，命中 4 个确定性争点词。", "viewpoint": "mixed", "confidence": 0.95, "assignedBy": "rule" }, "document": { "id": "news-context-ai-liability-ip-harms", "familyId": "news-family-ai-liability-ip-harms", "title": "AI 造成知识产权损害时，责任如何分配", "originalTitle": "AI Liability for Intellectual Property Harms", "url": "https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/ai-liability-for-intellectual-property-harms", "kind": "professional-commentary", "sourceId": "lawfare", "publishedAt": "2024-09-23", "author": "Katrina Geddes", "primaryOrSecondary": "secondary", "relationship": "independent", "identifiers": {}, "language": "en", "metadata": { "abstractZh": "文章分别分析未经许可训练、近似输出、版权管理信息、商标和形象商业利用，强调开发者、部署者与用户的责任不能用一个统一答案概括。", "venue": "Lawfare", "publisher": "Lawfare Institute", "publicationState": "published", "peerReviewed": false, "paywalled": false }, "editorialSummaryZh": "这篇评论把训练、输出和传播链条拆开，说明同一生成内容可能同时触发版权、商标与人格商业利用争议；它提供责任分配框架，不代表法院已经采纳其中结论。", "legalTopics": [ "copyright", "trademark", "personality-deepfake", "platform-liability" ], "aiRoles": [ "training-data", "model-output", "deepfake" ] } }, { "link": { "id": "news-context-link-matter-10-matter-10:issue-watermark-outputs-news-context-ai-liability-ip-harms", "matterId": "matter-10", "issueId": "matter-10:issue-watermark-outputs", "documentId": "news-context-ai-liability-ip-harms", "relationship": "news-context", "relevanceSummaryZh": "用于比较生成式 AI 供应链中训练复制、近似输出、元数据去除、商标和公开权的不同责任入口。 本次规则匹配仅使用本争点文本及其引用主张，命中 4 个确定性争点词。", "viewpoint": "mixed", "confidence": 0.95, "assignedBy": "rule" }, "document": { "id": "news-context-ai-liability-ip-harms", "familyId": "news-family-ai-liability-ip-harms", "title": "AI 造成知识产权损害时，责任如何分配", "originalTitle": "AI Liability for Intellectual Property Harms", "url": "https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/ai-liability-for-intellectual-property-harms", "kind": "professional-commentary", "sourceId": "lawfare", "publishedAt": "2024-09-23", "author": "Katrina Geddes", "primaryOrSecondary": "secondary", "relationship": "independent", "identifiers": {}, "language": "en", "metadata": { "abstractZh": "文章分别分析未经许可训练、近似输出、版权管理信息、商标和形象商业利用，强调开发者、部署者与用户的责任不能用一个统一答案概括。", "venue": "Lawfare", "publisher": "Lawfare Institute", "publicationState": "published", "peerReviewed": false, "paywalled": false }, "editorialSummaryZh": "这篇评论把训练、输出和传播链条拆开，说明同一生成内容可能同时触发版权、商标与人格商业利用争议；它提供责任分配框架，不代表法院已经采纳其中结论。", "legalTopics": [ "copyright", "trademark", "personality-deepfake", "platform-liability" ], "aiRoles": [ "training-data", "model-output", "deepfake" ] } }, { "link": { "id": "issue-document-matter-10-matter-10:issue-territorial-training-claim-knowledge-generative-ai-meets-copyright", "matterId": "matter-10", "issueId": "matter-10:issue-territorial-training-claim", "documentId": "knowledge-generative-ai-meets-copyright", "relationship": "doctrinal-context", "relevanceSummaryZh": "用于概览生成式 AI 版权诉讼的主要请求与尚未形成定论的合理使用问题。 本次规则匹配仅使用本争点文本及其引用主张，命中 1 个确定性争点词；AI 作用分面只用于候选召回。", "viewpoint": "descriptive", "confidence": 0.8500000000000001, "assignedBy": "rule" }, "document": { "id": "knowledge-generative-ai-meets-copyright", "familyId": "knowledge-family-generative-ai-meets-copyright", "title": "生成式 AI 遇上版权法", "originalTitle": "Generative AI Meets Copyright", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adi0656", "kind": "academic-research", "sourceId": "science", "publishedAt": "2023-07-14", "author": "Pamela Samuelson", "primaryOrSecondary": "secondary", "relationship": "independent", "identifiers": { "doi": "10.1126/science.adi0656" }, "language": "en", "metadata": { "abstractZh": "概述生成式 AI 训练与输出引发的版权诉讼路径，强调合理使用是逐案判断，正在进行的案件会同时影响开发者、部署者和普通使用者。", "venue": "Science 381(6654): 158–161", "publisher": "American Association for the Advancement of Science", "publicationState": "published", "peerReviewed": false, "paywalled": true }, "stableIdentifier": { "kind": "doi", "value": "10.1126/science.adi0656" }, "legalTopics": [ "copyright" ], "aiRoles": [ "training-data", "model-output" ] } }, { "link": { "id": "news-context-link-matter-10-matter-10:issue-territorial-training-claim-news-context-ai-liability-ip-harms", "matterId": "matter-10", "issueId": "matter-10:issue-territorial-training-claim", "documentId": "news-context-ai-liability-ip-harms", "relationship": "news-context", "relevanceSummaryZh": "用于比较生成式 AI 供应链中训练复制、近似输出、元数据去除、商标和公开权的不同责任入口。 本次规则匹配仅使用本争点文本及其引用主张，命中 4 个确定性争点词。", "viewpoint": "mixed", "confidence": 0.95, "assignedBy": "rule" }, "document": { "id": "news-context-ai-liability-ip-harms", "familyId": "news-family-ai-liability-ip-harms", "title": "AI 造成知识产权损害时，责任如何分配", "originalTitle": "AI Liability for Intellectual Property Harms", "url": "https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/ai-liability-for-intellectual-property-harms", "kind": "professional-commentary", "sourceId": "lawfare", "publishedAt": "2024-09-23", "author": "Katrina Geddes", "primaryOrSecondary": "secondary", "relationship": "independent", "identifiers": {}, "language": "en", "metadata": { "abstractZh": "文章分别分析未经许可训练、近似输出、版权管理信息、商标和形象商业利用，强调开发者、部署者与用户的责任不能用一个统一答案概括。", "venue": "Lawfare", "publisher": "Lawfare Institute", "publicationState": "published", "peerReviewed": false, "paywalled": false }, "editorialSummaryZh": "这篇评论把训练、输出和传播链条拆开，说明同一生成内容可能同时触发版权、商标与人格商业利用争议；它提供责任分配框架，不代表法院已经采纳其中结论。", "legalTopics": [ "copyright", "trademark", "personality-deepfake", "platform-liability" ], "aiRoles": [ "training-data", "model-output", "deepfake" ] } } ], "sources": [ { "id": "uk-judiciary", "slug": "uk-judiciary", "name": "Courts and Tribunals Judiciary", "homepage": "https://www.judiciary.uk/", "type": "court", "grade": "A", "primaryOrSecondary": "primary", "score": { "traceability": 25, "corrections": 18, "ownershipTransparency": 20, "expertise": 20, "historicalAccuracy": 15, "total": 98 }, "rationale": "法院、政府或监管机构自有发布渠道；程序状态以其正式文书与登记信息为准。", "methodologyVersion": "1.0", "reviewedAt": "2026-07-15" }, { "id": "science", "slug": "science", "name": "Science", "homepage": "https://www.science.org/", "type": "academic", "primaryOrSecondary": "secondary", "rationale": "AAAS 出版的学术期刊，具有 DOI、作者和卷期记录；评论栏目不自动标记为同行评审研究。", "grade": "A", "score": { "traceability": 25, "corrections": 19, "ownershipTransparency": 20, "expertise": 20, "historicalAccuracy": 15, "total": 99 }, "methodologyVersion": "1.0", "reviewedAt": "2026-07-16" }, { "id": "lawfare", "slug": "lawfare", "name": "Lawfare", "homepage": "https://www.lawfaremedia.org/", "type": "newsroom", "primaryOrSecondary": "secondary", "rationale": "作者和编辑准则公开，长期提供国家安全、平台治理和科技法分析；具体案件结论仍回溯官方材料。", "grade": "A", "score": { "traceability": 23, "corrections": 18, "ownershipTransparency": 19, "expertise": 19, "historicalAccuracy": 13, "total": 92 }, "methodologyVersion": "1.0", "reviewedAt": "2026-07-16", "ingestion": { "feedEnabled": false, "feedUrl": null, "verification": "not-verified", "allowedUse": "discovery-metadata-and-deep-links" } } ], "canonicalUrl": "/cases/getty-images-v-stability-ai-uk" }