WASHINGTON – The legal landscape surrounding image creation and ownership is undergoing a seismic shift, as five concurrent legal battles converge on a central question: who controls the value of an image in the age of artificial intelligence and autonomous drones? From copyright infringement suits over AI training data to challenges to new drone regulations, photographers face unprecedented uncertainty about how they will shoot, license, and protect their function in the coming years.
The most advanced test of AI training and copyright is unfolding in Andersen v. Stability AI (Case No. 3:23-cv-00201-WHO), filed in January 2023 in the Northern District of California. The suit, brought by artists Sarah Andersen, Karla Ortiz, and Kelly McKernan, alleges that Stability AI, Midjourney, DeviantArt, and Runway AI illegally copied billions of copyrighted images to train their image generators without permission. In August 2024, Judge William H. Orrick allowed key claims to proceed, including those based on the “training theory” – that the act of copying images into a dataset constitutes infringement – and the “model theory,” which posits that AI models contain compressed copies of copyrighted works. The court was influenced by statements from Stability AI CEO Emad Mostaque, who described the technology’s ability to compress vast image collections into relatively small files capable of recreating original content.
Discovery in the case is well underway. Electronic discovery protocols were resolved in March 2025 by Magistrate Judge Lisa J. Cisneros, and initial document production was substantially completed by October 2025. Disputes over access to source code and training data beyond the LAION-5B dataset remain unresolved. A summary judgment hearing, originally scheduled for earlier in 2026, has been postponed to February 17, 2027, placing the case behind other major AI copyright suits, such as Concord Music v. Anthropic, in the queue for a fair use ruling.
Meanwhile, Getty Images experienced a mixed outcome in a UK trial against Stability AI. While Getty initially alleged copyright infringement related to the scraping of 12.3 million images, the case faltered when the company failed to demonstrate that the model training occurred on servers within UK jurisdiction. Justice Joanna Smith ultimately rejected claims of secondary infringement, finding that the AI model’s weights encode learned mathematical patterns, not reproductions of specific copyrighted images. However, Getty did secure a win on trademark infringement, as early versions of Stable Diffusion occasionally generated outputs containing Getty’s watermark, though this issue was limited to 0.15% of prompts analyzed and was subsequently addressed in newer versions. Getty is appealing the copyright ruling, with a hearing expected in late 2026 or early 2027.
In August 2025, Getty refiled its lawsuit in the United States, initiating a new case in the Northern District of California (Case No. 3:25-cv-06891). This complaint alleges that the mass production of AI-generated content “hollows out” the value of original licensed work and lists 7,216 copyrighted images. Stability AI has filed a motion to dismiss, which remains pending. The US case, where fair use will be central, is considered a more promising avenue for photographers seeking a favorable precedent.
The entertainment industry is pursuing a more straightforward infringement claim in Disney et al. V. Midjourney (Case No. 2:25-cv-05275), filed in the Central District of California in June 2025, and consolidated with a related action filed by Warner Bros. And others in September 2025. The studios presented evidence demonstrating Midjourney’s ability to reproduce copyrighted characters – including Yoda and Pixar characters – from simple text prompts. Midjourney’s answer, filed in August 2025, relies heavily on fair use arguments and invokes the First Amendment, framing the platform as a tool for user expression. The studios also raised the argument of “unclean hands,” alleging that Disney and Universal themselves utilize generative AI internally. Discovery is underway, with court-ordered mediation scheduled for August 2026.
A separate case, Thaler v. Perlmutter, addresses the fundamental question of whether AI can be an author. Stephen Thaler sought copyright registration for artwork created by his AI system, listing the AI as the author. The Copyright Office and the D.C. Circuit Court both denied registration, citing the requirement for human authorship. However, the D.C. Circuit left the door open to copyrighting work made *with* the assistance of AI. Thaler petitioned the Supreme Court in October 2025, and the DOJ recommended denial in January 2026, arguing the case is not suitable for review. A decision on whether the Court will hear the case is expected in early March 2026. Regardless of the Court’s decision, the Copyright Office has clarified that AI-assisted work remains copyrightable when a human exercises creative judgment in the process.
A related case, Allen v. Perlmutter in Colorado, will further define the boundary between AI-assisted and AI-generated work. Jason Allen used Midjourney and Photoshop to create an award-winning image, and is arguing that his prompts constituted specific creative instructions. The Copyright Office contends that prompts are ideas, not authorship. Cross-motions for summary judgment were filed in January 2026, and the ruling will likely determine the extent of copyright protection for AI-assisted photography.
Finally, new drone regulations proposed by the FAA could significantly impact aerial photography. The proposed Part 108 rule aims to standardize Beyond Visual Line of Sight (BVLOS) operations, potentially unlocking extended-range surveys and autonomous missions. However, Section 108.700 would limit airworthiness acceptance to drones manufactured in the US or countries with bilateral UAS airworthiness agreements – effectively barring DJI and other foreign manufacturers. This restriction is compounded by recent FCC updates to its Covered List, which further complicates the import and operation of foreign-made drones. The FAA’s original timeline for finalizing the rule has slipped, and a final rule is not expected before March 16, 2026, at the earliest.
Photographers are advised to document their creative process when using AI tools, stock up on spare parts for existing DJI equipment, and closely monitor the Allen v. Perlmutter ruling in Colorado, as it will have a direct impact on their rights and livelihoods.
