The UK Copyright AI Showdown

July 15th 2025

The litigation and new law that could reshape the future of artificial intelligence in the UK.

In June the UK finally got in on the AI litigation action when the trial for Getty’s case against Stability AI began in London’s High Court. This case has the potential of being precedent-setting for technology and creativity. The timing was crucial given the ongoing pressure on the UK Government to clarify how the current UK copyright law works in the age of Generative AI and with the recent passing of the Data (Use and Access) Act, 2025.

 

The Data (Use and Access) Act, 2025 (1)

The House of Lords debates around the bill went on for months, like a game of table tennis! Baroness Kidron famously and expertly defended the creative sector with impassioned speeches gaining increasing support.

The impetus for the changes to the law had been the UK Government’s desire to boost the UK’s digital strategy and find ways to boost the economy. It came out of the UK’s AI Opportunities Action Plan. The tone was: (1) we need change in the era of AI, and (2) the current legal frameworks are not fit for purpose. What did that mean for copyright? Potentially nothing good, and arguably a weakening of copyright law. The demands for change were probably further emboldened by the US Vice President J.D. Vance’s speech during the AI Summit in Paris in February.

The UK creative sector fought back with campaigns like the music industry’s cry to “make it fair!” They were initially far noisier than those creators based in the US, who took longer to respond to the US’s AI Action Plan. Creators quite rightly want greater transparency and to force AI developers to seek their content before using their works to train their models and adequate remuneration. Instead of the largely black box model that exists today. They argued that existing copyright protections under UK law are being ignored by AI developers and wanted the government to intervene.

AI companies have rejected any notion that their activities are infringing and have been lobbying for lesser restrictions on access to data. They promise improved outcomes for everyone. Politically the UK is definitely swayed by the US business-first approach. As opposed to the more rights-first approach traditionally adopted by the EU. Geo-politics are dictating political sentiment and there will be more of this to come.

 

What’s Left

So, what is left? Getty will continue with its remaining claims, but the shift in their case has consequences for the parties watching this closely. The Data (Use and Access) Act, 2025 ended up addressing some data issues re. AI but the copyright questions were largely punted. The Act came into force with a mandate on the UK Government to produce an economic impact report and a report on the use of works protected by copyright in the development of AI systems. That is supposed to be out in 9 months. But given how long the EU AI Act Guidelines took and given the complexity with these questions we might be still waiting come mid-2026!

And what next? First, the Getty case may well put more pressure on the UK Government to continue to reform copyright law to ensure it is fit for purpose in the age of AI. Second, it might make other creative companies pause on bringing their own lawsuits. If Getty is struggling with its heft, how will smaller UK creators stand up and protect their hard earned copyright works? What are their options? How can they ensure that their consent is sought, and that they are properly compensated and credited?

We are on the first few steps of a long road to ensure the ethical and legal adoption of AI at scale. Having a solution orientated approach is key (e.g., possible licensing arrangements) while the law plays catch up like it usually does! Onward.

 

References:

(1) Received Royal Assent on 19 June, 2025