Getty CEO Slams AI Copyright Infringement as “Unfair Competition,” Cites Millions Spent Battling Stability AI

Getty Images is sounding the alarm on the escalating war between creators and artificial intelligence firms, revealing the staggering costs of defending copyright in the age of AI. In a fiery statement to CNBC, CEO Craig Peters said the media giant has spent “millions and millions of dollars” battling Stability AI — and admitted it’s simply too expensive to pursue every infringement in court.

At the heart of the legal showdown is Getty’s claim that Stability AI illegally scraped more than 12 million copyrighted images to train its popular text-to-image model, Stable Diffusion. Getty alleges the AI company used those images without permission or compensation, effectively weaponizing the creative works of photographers for its own commercial gain. “That’s theft, not innovation,” said Peters. “It’s unfair competition.”

Peters argues that this case is just one symptom of a broader problem — what he calls a “world of rhetoric” from AI firms that claim paying artists would “kill innovation.” Getty’s case against Stability AI, currently filed in both the U.K. and the U.S., seeks to challenge that narrative and reassert the value of intellectual property in the AI era.

Stability AI, for its part, maintains it did nothing wrong. The company contends that training AI on publicly available images falls under the legal doctrine of “fair use,” a defense that remains legally untested at this scale. Yet Peters isn’t buying it. He contends that companies are “scraping copyrighted material to build billion-dollar models and then turning around and selling those services into commercial markets.”

The legal battle has become a rallying point for creators, especially after recent remarks by former Meta executive Nick Clegg drew widespread online backlash. Clegg suggested that requiring artist consent would hinder progress — a view Getty and its supporters vehemently reject. As one critic put it on social media: “That’s like Blackbeard arguing that piracy would die if he had to ask for permission.”

While Getty continues to push for artist protections in the courtroom, Peters admits that even a well-funded company like his cannot keep pace with the volume of potential lawsuits. “We can’t pursue all the infringements that happen in one week,” he noted. The case against Stability AI alone has required extensive due diligence and legal maneuvering to determine where training occurred — adding complexity and cost.

Yet Getty is not retreating. The company has submitted proposals to the Trump administration, urging that its AI Action Plan preserve strong copyright protections. Getty rejects the notion of a “right to learn” exemption for AI companies, warning it would strip creators of their rights while enriching data-hungry tech giants.

Peters’ message is clear: the fight for creator rights is far from over, but it won’t be won in courtrooms alone. “This isn’t about protecting ourselves from innovation. It’s about building a sustainable path forward — one where the rights of artists are not sacrificed at the altar of technological disruption.”

With an initial trial to determine liability scheduled for June 9, the Getty-Stability AI case could set precedent for how the legal system treats data scraping and fair use in the age of generative AI.