Contact | Search |

Tag: Zoey-Forbes

Remember, remember the third of November – Copyright, AI and Chatbots

Posted on by Lauren Sinclair

On 29 September, the European Commission launched a public consultation on possible reforms to EU copyright law.

The consultation forms part of the Commission’s wider review of the 2019 Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive, which introduced (among other things) a commercial text and data mining (TDM) exception with a rights holder opt-out in the EU. The rapid rise of generative artificial intelligence has posed significant challenges to the efficacy of the TDM exception, with rights holders facing difficulties in opting their content out of AI training. In light of this, the Commission is exploring ways to facilitate the licensing and enforcement of copyright and related rights in the AI context, while enabling AI providers to lawfully access quality copyright-protected content for AI innovation within Europe.

The consultation asks both rights holders and AI providers to give feedback on these difficulties and to rank various policy options that could address them. The options include legislative and non-legislative measures, which range from maintaining the status quo, clarifying the application of existing EU copyright rules for AI uses and operationalising the TDM opt-out, to introducing a rebuttable presumption of use of copyrighted content by AI providers in certain circumstances (e.g. where AI providers do not comply with the EU AI Act’s transparency obligations). Potential measures to facilitate AI licensing include developing model contractual clauses, promoting collective licensing and introducing a specific remuneration right.

The consultation covers a number of other topics that may be relevant to authors and publishers, including proposals relating to non-commercial scientific research exceptions (e.g. making the current, optional exception for scientific research mandatory across the EU or expanding its scope to include commercial research) and secondary publication rights (e.g. introducing an EU-wide Secondary Publication Right that would allow authors to share publicly funded research works openly and separately from the published version). It also proposes protections against AI-generated imitation of performers (see our previous update on whether existing IP rights can protect your image and persona here) and measures against online piracy of time-sensitive content (such as live events). The Commission has stressed that the consultation is not an exhaustive or final list of the measures under consideration.

Although any measures implemented following the consultation will not apply in the UK, they will impact businesses that operate in Europe and set a precedent that other jurisdictions may (or may not) choose to follow. The UK government has repeatedly considered introducing a European-style commercial TDM exception to encourage AI training and development within the UK, but it formally abandoned plans to do so earlier this year.

The Commission wants to receive feedback from both sides of the AI and copyright debate, including AI providers, authors, publishers, and other rights holders. If you want to provide your views and have not yet done so, the deadline to respond is fast approaching: the consultation closes on 3 November 2026.

Coincidentally, that is the same day that Advocate General Szpunar’s opinion in the CJEU case Like Company v Google Ireland is due to be released, which is expected to address whether training an LLM-based chatbot constitutes an instance of reproduction under EU copyright law and, if so, whether such reproduction falls within the commercial TDM exception. While not binding, the Advocate General’s opinion often provides an early signal of the direction the CJEU’s decision may take. As the first case in which the CJEU has considered copyright in the context of AI training, the CJEU’s eventual decision will have a significant impact upon the position of rights-holders and the control they can exercise over the use of their copyright-protected content for AI training within Europe. We will keep you posted.

If you would like to speak to us about how these developments may impact the publishing sector, please contact a member of our team below.

Harbottle & Lewis advises ONE Strategy Studio on its sale to Radius Insights

Posted on by Dea Dragashi

We have advised ONE Strategy Studio, the world leading AI-first strategic insight agency, on its sale to Radius Insights.

Founded in 2023, ONE Strategy Studio uses Gen AI Automation to reinvent the insight & strategy agency experience, using automated AI solutions to transform brand strategy.

The team was led by co-managing partner Charlie Leveque and managing associate Katerina Capras with support from associates Suzie Hamilton and Julia Routledge, who advised on all corporate matters relating to the deal. Partner David Scott advised on tax and managing associate Zoey Forbes advised on intellectual property.

On working with Harbottle & Lewis, ONE Strategy Studio founder Jonathan Williams commented:

“Going through a transaction is one of the hardest challenges in the start-up journey. Charlie, Katerina, Zoey and Julia from Harbottle and Lewis were the perfect partners to help us navigate the strange and complex world of legal negotiations and doing so with amazing pace, patience and resilience. When things get tough (and they will!) this is the team you want by your side and fighting your corner. We have partnered on multiple transactions, and I wouldn’t hesitate to recommend them to anyone in the agency space looking to do the same.”

Charlie Leveque added:

“It has been a privilege to work with Jonathan and John. They are visionary founders who are harnessing the transformative power of AI to turbo-charge the growth of a state-of-the-art brand strategy and intelligence business. They have set a new benchmark for innovation in the industry, and we are looking forward to seeing ONE Strategy Studio achieve continued success as part of Radius.”

We advise on a broad range of corporate and corporate finance transactions including investments, mergers and acquisitions, joint ventures and private equity transactions. Learn more about our corporate practice here.

With special thanks to ONE Strategy Studio for the team’s “manga warrior heroes”, pictured below.

Model Behaviour: Stability AI’s model is not an “infringing copy”, but legality of AI training remains unresolved

Posted on by Dea Dragashi

In the recent judgment in Getty Images v Stability AI [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch), the High Court considered whether the generative AI model Stable Diffusion infringed copyright in works owned by/licensed to Getty Images, and further whether the model outputs infringed Getty Images’ trade marks. Getty argued that millions of its images had been used without permission to train the Stable Diffusion model, and that the model itself was therefore an infringing copy of the works.

Crucially, the court was not considering whether copyright was infringed during the training process of Stable Diffusion, as those claims were not pursued to trial by Getty due to a lack of evidence of training having been taken place in the UK. Instead, the High Court decided on the much narrower issue of whether the trained Stable Diffusion model is itself an “infringing copy” of the copyright works trained on. If the model was an infringing copy, under secondary copyright infringement law, its import into the UK would have infringed Getty’s copyright, even though the model had not been trained in the UK.

The High Court’s decision came down to the way in which Stable Diffusion was trained, and the relationship between the model and its training data. Stable Diffusion is a diffusion model, meaning its model weights are numerical parameters learned from training, not stored or compressed copies of its training data. The model does not contain any of Getty’s copyright images in any form whatsoever – and never has done – even though it may have been exposed to them during training. Getty’s secondary copyright claim failed as a result.

Although Getty lost its secondary copyright infringement claim, this was a highly fact-specific decision which related to this model of Stable Diffusion only. The High Court stressed this in its decision. Although it may be true that an “AI model which does not store or reproduce any copyright works (and has never done so) is not an “infringing copy””, this leaves the door open for an AI model that does store or reproduce copyright works (or has done so at some point) being found to be an infringing copy of its training data. Other model architectures that retain or reproduce their training data verbatim – which is more common for text models than image models like Stable Diffusion – may still be deemed infringing copies. In addition, there is scope for argument on whether a more liberal interpretation of what is an infringing copy should be adopted: in circumstances where the model has extracted the value and intellectual creation of copyright works, and in a manner that was not envisaged when the legislation was passed, why is this not reproduction of the underlying intellectual creation?

Further, as Getty dropped its training claims at trial, the UK courts are yet to decide on whether the training of AI models using copyright works in the UK infringes copyright. That question will need to be decided in a future claim involving an AI model that was trained (or at least partially trained) in the UK. 

On the trade mark infringement claim, the court made a limited finding of trade mark infringement where early model versions of Stable Diffusion produced outputs with Getty-style watermarks.

If you’d like to speak to a member of the team about any of the issues raised by the judgment, please reach out to one of our AI experts.