It was billed as the case that would decide whether AI companies can train on your work. Then the UK court handed down its verdict — and the headlines said Getty lost. But the real story is more useful, and more nuanced, than any headline. Here’s Getty v. Stability AI in plain English: what Getty actually claimed, why it mostly lost in the UK, why the US case is far from over, and what all of it means for you as a creator.
Three working artists took on the biggest names in AI image generation — and started the case that could decide whether training AI on your art without permission is legal. Here’s Andersen v. Stability AI in plain English: who’s suing, what they claim, what the court has already decided, the huge question still unanswered, and what all of it means for you.
The right to sell an AI image doesn’t come from copyright — it comes from the tool’s license. And ‘commercial use’ in that license is a defined term with subscription tiers, revenue caps, and indemnification fine print. Here’s what it really means.