McCyber reference
AI in the courts
Can a model itself infringe copyright? Who decides whether software companies can train on customers’ files? Follow the claims, rulings and unanswered questions in cases covered by McCyber.
Court records checked
| Case | Stage | Last verified event |
|---|---|---|
| Getty Images v Stability AI | Appeal heard | |
| Chicago Tribune v Perplexity | Evidence gathering | |
| The New York Times v Perplexity | Evidence gathering | |
| Khan v Figma | Court case stayed for arbitration |
Getty Images v Stability AI
Court of Appeal of England and Wales · CA-2026-000007
- What is in dispute?
- Can importing an AI model into the UK infringe copyright if the model’s weights contain none of the photographs used to train it? Getty says that making the model involved copying its images, and that the statute reaches the resulting model.
- What has the court decided?
- On 4 November 2025 the High Court dismissed Getty’s secondary copyright claim. The judge held that the models could be articles under the statute, but their weights did not store copies of the photographs. Getty succeeded on limited trade mark claims concerning watermarks in images generated by early versions of Stable Diffusion.
- What comes next?
- The Court of Appeal heard the secondary copyright issue on 11 and 12 November 2026. The next document to look for is its judgment interpreting section 27 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
- Read the record
- McCyber on the High Court judgment
Chicago Tribune v Perplexity
US District Court, Southern District of New York · 1:25-cv-10094
- What is in dispute?
- The Tribune alleges two acts of copying. It says Perplexity copied journalism to supply its services with material, then reproduced protected passages in the answers users received. Its amended complaint gives examples involving the answer engine and the Comet browser.
- What has the court decided?
- Judge Loretta Preska signed an order on 21 October 2026 setting conditions for inspecting confidential source code in this case and the related Times case. It governs how the parties can examine evidence. The copyright allegations remain contested.
- What comes next?
- The court listed a status conference for 12 November. Look for a published order on the disputed claims or on what evidence the parties must produce.
- Read the record
- McCyber on the two newspaper suits
The New York Times v Perplexity
US District Court, Southern District of New York · 1:25-cv-10106
- What is in dispute?
- The Times, Wirecutter and The Athletic say Perplexity copied their journalism and used their names to credit them with statements they never published. The latter allegation gives the publishers a trade mark claim alongside their copyright claims.
- What has the court decided?
- The court’s 21 October order allows confidential source code to be examined under agreed restrictions. Perplexity has also asked the judge to dismiss several claims. Its motion sets out its defence to those claims. The published discovery order leaves liability open.
- What comes next?
- The court listed this case alongside the Tribune’s for a status conference on 12 November. A ruling on the motion to dismiss would establish which claims can continue.
- Read the record
- Publishers’ amended complaint, 20 March
- Perplexity’s motion, 17 April
- Source-code inspection order
- Court calendar, 12 November
Khan v Figma
US District Court, Northern District of California · 3:25-cv-10054
- What is in dispute?
- Raza Khan alleges that Figma used private design work uploaded by customers to train its AI products without their permission. His proposed class action includes breach of contract and trade secret claims. It asks the court to stop the alleged use.
- What has the court decided?
- On 8 May 2026 Judge Charles Breyer ordered arbitration and paused the federal case. The judge held that an arbitrator must first decide whether an exception in Figma’s terms allows Khan to pursue his claim in court. The order leaves the allegations about training unresolved.
- What comes next?
- The May order is the latest published decision McCyber could verify. A later public filing lifting the stay or recording an arbitration outcome would change this entry.
- Read the record
- McCyber on the Figma complaint