UK Getty Images v Stability AI: What It May Mean For Singapore And Hong Kong

The UK High Court's ruling in Getty Images v Stability AI [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) ("Getty v Stability") is a landmark on copyright and trade marks for Generative Artificial Intelligence ("GenAI"). A summary of this case and its implications under UK law may be found in our previous Legal Update, Getty Images v Stability AI: What the High Court's Decision Means for Rights-Holders and AI Developers.

The analysis in Getty v Stability provides a clear framework that aligns with the statutory architecture of Singapore's Copyright Act 2021 ("SG CA") and Hong Kong's Copyright Ordinance ("HK CO"). Both jurisdictions define copying to include electronic storage, provide secondary infringement routes for importation and commercial dealing in infringing copies, and apply orthodox territorial principles. Three themes are most salient: territorial limits on primary claims, the "infringing copy" requirement for secondary liability, and recognition that electronic or intangible items can be "articles" where the item itself embodies the work.

Against this context, this Legal Update seeks to distil key copyright principles from Getty v Stability, mapping their possible implications in Singapore and Hong Kong.

Getty v Stability: A Brief Recap

• Facts: Getty alleged Stability trained Stable Diffusion using datasets containing Getty-owned/licensed images, and that some outputs displayed Getty/iStock watermarks. Stability made the model available via downloadable "model weights" for local use and via hosted services where generation runs on Stability's servers.
• Getty's Case: Getty brought UK claims for primary and secondary copyright infringement and trade mark infringement relating to watermark-bearing outputs (with passing off pleaded).
• Stability's Defence: Stability argued that training occurred outside the United Kingdom, that model weights are not "copies" under the CDPA for secondary dealing, and that filtering and hosted controls reduced watermark outputs.
• Territoriality: The Court held that primary copyright claims failed because training and development occurred outside the United Kingdom. On this basis, the Court did not go further to decide whether training AI on copyright images would, as a matter of principle, amount to primary infringement under UK law.
• Secondary infringement: The Court held that an "article" for secondary dealing can be electronic or intangible, but it must itself embody a copy of the work. Being merely the product of a process that involved copying elsewhere is insufficient. In this regard, Stable Diffusion's model weights were not "infringing copies" because they did not store or reproduce the visual content of the training images. Importation, possession or distribution of the weights in the UK did not amount to secondary dealing. Outputs were to be assessed separately on their own facts.

Territoriality

In Hong Kong, the acts restricted by copyright are those exercisable "in Hong Kong," with primary infringement arising where those acts are done without licence (HK CO, ss. 22 and 23).

In Singapore, primary infringement occurs where a person either does "in Singapore" any act comprised in the copyright or authorises the doing "in Singapore" of any act comprised in the copyright "in Singapore" (SG CA, s. 146).

Accordingly, where training and dataset reproduction take place abroad, primary claims are difficult to sustain in either forum. Localised steps—for example, assembling datasets, storing copies, or communicating works within the jurisdiction—likely remain actionable on their facts.

Secondary Infringement

InHong Kong, secondary civil liability is created for: (i) importing or exporting infringing copies (HK CO, s. 30); (ii) dealing in infringing copies, including possession in trade or business and prejudicial distribution (HK CO, s. 31); and (iii) providing means for makinginfringing copies, including articles specifically designed or adapted for copying (HK CO, s. 32).

"Infringing copy" is defined in HK CO s. 35, which is in pari materia‌ with the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 ("UK CDPA") s. 27. Given that the HK CO was modelled after the UK CDPA, the decision in Getty v Stability interpreting the meaning of "infringing copies" and scope of secondary infringement in the context of GenAI models will likely be highly persuasive. In the absence of cogent policy reasons to the contrary, one can expect the Hong Kong Court to reach a similar conclusion—model weights that encode learned parameters but do not store or reproduce visual content of training images would not ordinarily be "copies"; consequently, importation, possession or distribution of such weights would typically not meet the threshold for secondary infringement absent technical evidence of memorisation or embedded image data.

InSingapore, secondary civil liability attaches to (i) importing, for commercial dealing or prejudicial distribution, an article made without the copyright owner's consent (SG CA, s. 147), and (ii) commercially dealing in, or prejudicially distributing, such an article in Singapore (SG CA, s. 148) – in both cases where the defendant "knows or ought reasonably to know" that the article infringes copyright (if made in Singapore) or was made without the consent of the copyright owner (if imported into Singapore).

An "article" is defined as including a "copy, in electronic form, of a work" (SG CA, s. 7(1)). A "copy" of an authorial work is further defined as reproduction "in any material form," expressly including storage in a computer or by electronic means (SG CA, s. 41) as well as temporary or incidental copies (SG CA, ss. 50, 52). On first glance, the requirement that an "article" involve a reproduction in material form suggests that the decision in Getty v Stability may be applicable in Singapore – model weights cannot be said to reproduce the visual content of training images in material form, with the result that the former are unlikely to be regarded as "copies" of the latter.

The slight nuance in Singapore is that the definition of "article" is non-exhaustive, leaving it open for a copyright owner to argue that differences in statutory language warrant a departure from Getty v Stability – although the merits of such an approach would inevitably have to be tested in litigation.

It is also notable that the statutory computational data analysis exception in Singapore is theoretically broader and capable of application in both commercial and non-commercial contexts (SG CA, ss. 243-244). The statutory computational data analysis exception in the UK is comparatively narrow, applying solely to "research for a non-commercial purpose" (UK CDPA, s. 29A). It may be that, as a matter of policy, the expanded availability of the statutory computational data analysis exception in Singapore justifies a more liberal approach towards findings of copyright infringement.

Conclusion

Across Singapore and Hong Kong, the possible impact of the UK judgement is to narrow secondary infringement theories aimed at model weights and to refocus analysis on where copying occurs and whether any artefact actually embodies the work.

Territoriality remains the starting point in both Singapore and Hong Kong—primary infringement generally turns on where acts of reproduction or storage occur, so mapping technical workflows to the place of copying remains essential.

For secondary infringement, liability hinges on whether the item dealt with is itself an infringing "article" or "infringing copy." Policy differences may matter at the margins yet, in practice, copyright infringement issues in Singapore and Hong Kong will likely focus on dataset governance, lawful access, output filtering, hosted controls and clear licensing. Many key questions in Singapore and Hong Kong remain to be resolved in litigation and time will tell whether the balance will be struck in favour of GenAI developers or copyright owners.

Visit us at mayerbrown.com

Mayer Brown is a global services provider comprising associated legal practices that are separate entities, including Mayer Brown LLP (Illinois, USA), Mayer Brown International LLP (England & Wales), Mayer Brown (a Hong Kong partnership) and Tauil & Chequer Advogados (a Brazilian law partnership) and non-legal service providers, which provide consultancy services (collectively, the "Mayer Brown Practices"). The Mayer Brown Practices are established in various jurisdictions and may be a legal person or a partnership. PK Wong & Nair LLC ("PKWN") is the constituent Singapore law practice of our licensed joint law venture in Singapore, Mayer Brown PK Wong & Nair Pte. Ltd. Details of the individual Mayer Brown Practices and PKWN can be found in the Legal Notices section of our website. "Mayer Brown" and the Mayer Brown logo are the trademarks of Mayer Brown.

© Copyright 2025. The Mayer Brown Practices. All rights reserved.

This Mayer Brown article provides information and comments on legal issues and developments of interest. The foregoing is not a comprehensive treatment of the subject matter covered and is not intended to provide legal advice. Readers should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to the matters discussed herein.