Volume 08 Issue 09 September 2025
1Alifia Lintang Kanaya, 2Budi Santoso
1,2Master of Law, Faculty of Law, Universitas Diponegoro
DOI : https://doi.org/10.47191/ijsshr/v8-i9-49Google Scholar Download Pdf
ABSTRACT
Al intelligence has introduced complex challenges to copyright law, as demonstrated by the high-profile dispute between Getty Images and Stability AI. Getty Images, a leading stock photography provider, alleges that Stability AI unlawfully used millions of its copyrighted images to train the Stable Diffusion model without authorization or compensation. This case has become a focal point in the debate over whether the use of copyrighted material for AI training constitutes fair use or infringement. The controversy also raises broader questions about derivative works, the appearance of watermarks in generated outputs, and the potential misuse of trademarks. From the perspective of creative industries, the case underscores the risk of uncompensated exploitation of intellectual property, while for technology developers it highlights the need for large datasets to sustain innovation. Different jurisdictions adopt contrasting approaches, with the United States relying on fair use analysis and the European Union emphasizing data mining exceptions and opt-out rights. The outcome of this case will shape the future balance between protecting creators and fostering technological progress, potentially leading to new licensing frameworks for AI training. Ultimately, this dispute illustrates the urgent need for legal adaptation in respon se to emerging generative technologies.
KEYWORDS:Copyright, Generative AI, Getty Images
REFERENCES1) Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
2) Craig, C. (2023). Compulsory licensing in the age of artificial intelligence. Intellectual Property Quarterly, 2023(1), 55–79.
3) Creswell, J. W. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.
4) Elkins, J. (2023). Artists versus algorithms: Copyright challenges in generative AI. Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts, 46(2), 155–190.
5) Flick, U. (2014). An introduction to qualitative research (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.
6) Gervais, D. (2021). The machine as author. Iowa Law Review, 106(5), 2053–2104.
7) Getty Images. (2023). Complaint against Stability AI. United States District Court for the District of Delaware.
8) Goldstein, P. (2019). Copyright’s highway: From Gutenberg to the celestial jukebox (3rd ed.). Stanford University Press.
9) Hartmann, B. (2023). Innovation under constraint: AI development and legal uncertainty. Technology and Society Review, 12(1), 44–67.
10) Kumar, R. (2023). Statistical learning or copyright infringement? Rethinking AI training datasets. Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, 37(1), 101–142.
11) LeCun, Y. (2023). AI research, data, and the balance of interests. Nature Machine Intelligence, 5(6), 499–502. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-023-00789-9
12) Leval, P. (1990). Toward a fair use standard. Harvard Law Review, 103(5), 1105–1136. https://doi.org/10.2307/1341457
13) Lessig, L. (2004). Free culture: The nature and future of creativity. Penguin Press.
14) Litman, J. (2022). Revisiting copyright collectives for the digital age. Michigan Law Review, 120(4), 601–642.
15) Samuelson, P. (2014). Google Books is not a library. Communications of the ACM, 57(7), 19–22. https://doi.org/10.1145/2629633