Does it?
I mean, it probably does now, but did it say that at the time this training of Stability AI's model was going on? Did Getty have that foresight?
Most TOS boilerplate typicall prohibit commercial usage of their library without explicit license , Getty and every other company has that foresight if there is money to made they would want their cut is all that really need .
Let’s say you even just wanted to consume all images just sell an analysis of how many b/w images are there in their catalog it would still breach of their terms unless their TOS allowed you to do so the novel copyright question may simply not even matter in this particular case.
Also NAL, but I'm cynical enough to believe that Getty's lawyers would avoid answering this question directly. And then wax lyrical about how their client should indeed receive a royalty for anyone attempting to use Getty's copyrighted works to learn the art.
> Making matters worse, Stability AI has caused the Stable Diffusion model to incorporate a modified version of the Getty Images’ watermark to bizarre or grotesque synthetic imagery that tarnishes Getty Images’ hard-earned reputation, such as the image below
(see page 18 for an example)
Getty is going to win something. There is clearly a problem with the model. The outputs are often not novel enough to make them indistinguishable from the training data.
So in some ways, you can argue that Stability is also directly redistributing the original images (albeit in a compressed format).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_disp...
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=6c52581e-d82f...
Maybe it is. A human artist rolling a die to determine color changes, what to include and exclude, etc isn't much different.