Source: Simmons & Simmons

AI-related disputes involving intellectual property are now materialising across multiple jurisdictions, reshaping risk assessments for organisations deploying AI models and tools. Getty has alleged that Stability AI infringed copyright and trade marks through model training and outputs, but according to the webpage Getty’s main copyright claims failed while it succeeded narrowly on trade mark infringement, with an appeal scheduled to start 10 November 2026. The Munich courts have taken a stricter approach: in GEMA v OpenAI the courts found that reproduction of protected lyrics by ChatGPT amounted to copyright infringement and held OpenAI responsible for outputs, a reasoning later extended in GEMA v Suno to AI-generated music where memorisation of protected works posed a high infringement risk.

Patent and authorship questions remain contested: the page cites the DABUS cases as confirming that inventors seeking patent protection in the UK, US and Europe must be human, while the threshold of human contribution for AI-assisted inventions is still unclear. Copyright protection is said to hinge on demonstrable human creative input and control, and the UK Government has proposed removing the specific protection for computer-generated works; AI cannot be a joint author and platform terms can affect ownership. Practical recommendations include checking provider training practices and data licensing, testing for memorisation, avoiding reliance on text and data mining exceptions, training employees, recording human contribution (prompt logs), and assessing jurisdictional risk. The piece warns of increased audit and disclosure requests from rights holders, divergent court approaches across jurisdictions, market moves toward one-off or collective licensing, and urges organisations to strengthen AI governance to withstand scrutiny and potential enforcement.