Getty Images is spending millions of dollars fighting artificial intelligence companies that use copyrighted images without permission, but even this industry giant is struggling to keep up with the financial burden of defending artists’ rights.
CEO Craig Peters recently opened up about the harsh reality facing his company and countless other content creators. The costs of taking AI companies to court have become so overwhelming that Getty can’t pursue every case of alleged copyright infringement, even when they believe they have strong legal grounds.
“Even for a company like Getty Images, we can’t pursue all the infringements that happen in one week,” Peters told CNBC. “We can’t pursue it because the courts are just prohibitively expensive. We are spending millions and millions of dollars in one court case.”
That case is Getty’s ongoing lawsuit against Stability AI, the company behind the popular Stable Diffusion image generator.
Getty Images vs. Stability AI: Is AI Training “Fair Use” or “Unfair Competition”?
Getty alleges that Stability AI copied 12 million images from its collection without permission or payment, then used those images to train its AI system. The photo company sees this as more than just copyright violation – they view it as building a competing business using stolen content.
Stability AI doesn’t deny using some Getty images in their training process, but they’re fighting back with a familiar defense.
The AI company argues their practices fall under fair use, a legal doctrine that allows limited use of copyrighted material under certain circumstances. It’s an argument that’s become standard across the AI industry as companies face mounting legal challenges.
Peters isn’t buying it. He’s particularly frustrated with AI companies’ claims that paying for access to creative works would slow down innovation. “We’re battling a world of rhetoric,” he said, accusing these firms of hiding behind promises of technological progress to justify what he considers unfair competition.
“That’s disruption under the notion of ‘move fast and break things,’ and we believe that’s unfair competition,” Peters explained. He emphasized that Getty isn’t against competition itself – but what these companies are doing crosses the line into theft.
Getty’s AI Copyright Battle: A Global Fight for Creative Rights
The Getty-Stability AI battle represents just one front in a much larger war over AI and copyright. The New York Times is suing OpenAI over similar issues, while record labels are taking legal action against AI music generators. These high-profile cases highlight growing concerns about how AI companies use copyrighted material to train their systems.
But here’s the problem: the sheer scale and cost of litigation make it nearly impossible for most content creators to challenge every instance of alleged infringement. While Getty Images has the resources to pursue major cases, smaller artists and creators often can’t afford to fight back at all.
Getty hasn’t limited its strategy to the courtroom. The company has also been pushing for stronger copyright protections through policy advocacy. Recently, they urged the US government to reject proposals that would weaken artists’ rights in the name of AI development.
The company made its case directly to the Trump administration, arguing that existing US copyright laws aren’t blocking AI progress. Instead, Getty contends these laws provide a foundation for sustainable innovation that actually benefits society as a whole.
Despite the mounting costs and uncertain legal landscape, Peters remains determined to keep fighting. “I think our case is very strong,” he said, though he acknowledges the challenges of navigating different legal systems around the world.
“The facts in aggregate at a global scale I think are absolutely in our favor,” Peters noted. “How they manifest themselves around the geographic and legal constructs that are there I think is still stuff that we’re going to have to continue to play out.”
The outcome of these cases could reshape how AI companies access and use creative content. For now, Getty Images continues its expensive legal battle, knowing that the costs of defending creators’ rights have become almost as challenging as the infringement itself.
