The 10th event of the LIV Golf League season gets started this week at LIV Golf Andalucia. Serving as the host course for the third consecutive season is iconic Real Club Valderrama.
RELATED: Power Rankings | Fantasy Preview | Play LIV Golf Fantasy
Here is who our experts (in alphabetical order) like this week in Andalucia.
JASON CROOK, SENIOR DIGITAL CONTENT MANAGER
INDIVIDUAL
Bryson DeChambeau – The Crushers have been on a tear with three straight team victories, and their captain Bryson DeChambeau has been leading by example – it’s no accident he currently resides in second place in the season-long individual standings. He broke a string of four consecutive top-five LIV Golf finishes in Dallas, but even there he made a Sunday charge with a with a 4-under 68 to finish just two strokes out of a playoff, eventually won by Patrick Reed. He also has a solid track record at Valderrama, finishing 9th last year and 2nd in 2023, so expect to see more brilliance out of DeChambeau this weekend in Spain.
TEAM
4Aces GC – The 4Aces have flown under the radar this season, but they quietly sit fourth in the season-long team standings as they enter LIV Golf Andalucia fresh off back-to-back runner-up finishes. Patrick Reed is the obvious current headliner for the 4Aces, looking for his second straight LIV Golf individual victory with an eye on a Ryder Cup captain’s pick – it also doesn’t hurt that he finished T4 at Valderrama in 2024 and T5 in 2023. But captain Dustin Johnson , Harold Varner III and Thomas Pieters have all shown some form recently that should lead to this team’s fifth podium finish of 2025, or possibly their first victory since 2023.
MIKE MCALLISTER, DIRECTOR, EDITORIAL
INDIVIDUAL
Patrick Reed – No LIV Golf player has a better average finish the last two years at Valderrama than Patrick Reed, who was T4 last year and T5 in 2023. The course sets up well for his game, and he’s obviously in form after the win in Dallas. He could join Talor Gooch as the only players to win consecutive individual LIV Golf titles.
TEAM
Crushers GC – Speaking of winning streaks … the Crushers has won three straight and now come to a course that probably owes them one. In 2023, they shared the second-round team lead but had a rare Sunday stumble and finished third. Last year, they lost in a playoff to the Fireballs. Four straight wins doesn’t seem unlikely this week.
BRYAN MULLEN, DIGITAL PRODUCER
INDIVIDUAL
Tyrrell Hatton – Tyrrell Hatton finished solo third at LIV Golf Andalucia last season and his game is primed for another high finish. The Legion XIII star was in position to win at LIV Golf Dallas two weeks ago before falling in a playoff. His major championship juices are also flowing with The Open taking place next week, and his memories of a stellar T4 finish recently at the U.S. Open are still fresh.
TEAM
Legion XIII – Jon Rahm’s team is coming off a third-place showing in Dallas and is the only team to notch points in every event this season. They enter this week No. 2 in the season-long team standings, a mere 5.34 points behind leader Crushers GC. Legion has five top-3 finishes in 2025 and two team victories.
MATT VINCENZI, SENIOR WRITER
INDIVIDUAL
Louis Oosthuizen – This season, Louis Oosthuizen ‘s three best finishes have come outside of the United States. The Stinger GC captain has always played his best golf as evidenced by his 10 DP World Tour wins and Open Championship victory. Oosthuizen may not be able to keep up with some of LIV Golf’s big hitters on tracks that favor distance over accuracy, but Valderrama will be a test of strategy and precision, which is where Oosthuizen can shine.
TEAM
Stinger GC – Stinger GC is winless this season, but I believe this could be the week they break through. Louis Oosthuizen had his best start of the season in Dallas and may now be the best LIV Golf player without a win after Patrick Reed’s victory. Dean Burmester is coming into the week confident with a medalist finish at The Open Championship qualifier and Branden Grace has quietly strung together three solid performances in a row.
Every year, humanity tallies its carbon emissions, but it rarely considers how the planet itself bears that burden. A new study flips the script by treating Earth as a stressed material rather than a passive scoreboard.
A team led by Matthias Jonas of the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) converted gigatons of emissions into units engineers use to test bridges.
The researchers borrowed tools from rheology, the science of how substances deform. Their numbers suggest the carbon‑climate system is already flexing beyond its natural range.
Earth feels stress from carbon pollution
Instead of tonnes, the team measured atmospheric pressure in pascals, the metric engineers apply to describe a push on a square meter of surface. They model Earth as a Maxwell body, a simple combination of elastic and viscous parts that stretch and flow when forced.
In that picture, accumulated emissions create stress while expansion of the air column and slower absorption of carbon by land and sea show up as strain. The ratio of the two reveals how quickly the global fabric is wearing thin.
“We wanted to see how the entire Earth system stretches and strains under that burden,” explained Jonas.
By calculating the change from 1850 to 2021, the team uncovered hidden thresholds invisible in the usual mass‑balance charts.
Even low stress reshapes Earth
The calculations show that by 2021 humanity was injecting between 12.8 and 15.5 pascals per year of extra energy per unit volume, a value Jonas calls stress power.
Spread over every cubic yard of air, water, and soil, that push compares to the force of a light breeze yet persists nonstop.
Such steady pressure, tiny at any single point, becomes enormous once multiplied across the oceans and atmosphere. Earth’s natural buffers can accommodate only so much before their response time slows.
Jonas compares the phenomenon to leaving a garden hose on low all night; the gentle trickle still floods the yard by morning. In the same way, low but unrelenting stress alters atmospheric volume and ocean chemistry alike.
Weakening of Earth’s natural systems
The study charts delay time, the lag between a pulse of emissions and the planet’s structural response. That metric peaked in the early 1900s, revealing that land and ocean sinks began to lose agility far sooner than expected.
For their mid‑range estimate, the tipping year is 1932 – almost two decades after the Model T rolled off assembly lines.
After that point, the land‑ocean system no longer recovered in step with stress, it merely absorbed the hit and carried scars forward.
“Even if we hit our emissions targets, the weakening of Earth’s natural systems could still leave us facing major disruptions sooner than expected,” noted Jonas.
Growing strain makes climate action urgent
Carbon dioxide output topped 40.9 billion tons in 2022, a record that nudged stress power up another notch. As emissions grow roughly 0.5 percent per year, the energy injected into the planet’s framework rises even if temperature targets appear on paper.
Delay also magnifies costs, because infrastructure built for a cooler baseline may degrade faster under compounded thermal and mechanical strain. Counting only temperature ignores those hidden maintenance bills.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warns that to keep global warming close to 2.7 °F, greenhouse gas emissions must peak before 2025 and decline by 43 percent by 2030.
Jonas’ numbers imply that every year of delay increases baseline stress, meaning future cuts must be steeper just to arrest further strain on the planet.
Natural sinks are losing their strength
Natural sinks still sponge up about half of human CO₂, but their efficiency is waning, especially in the Southern Ocean and tropical forests. In 2023, extreme heat left land vegetation absorbing almost no net carbon according to global monitoring.
Ocean uptake has slowed by as much as four percent in the past decade, while land sink efficiency has swung in and out of negative territory during major droughts.
The strain analysis corroborates those field observations by showing the ocean side of the equation weakening faster than the terrestrial side.
In the model, the damping constant linked to ocean uptake falls 30 percent between 1850 and today, a sign that heat and acidity may already be reshaping marine chemistry. The land constant declines, too, but at a gentler pace.
Past stress and future climate risks
Because stress power grows with cumulative emissions, simply hitting net‑zero late in the century will not reset the clock. The strain frozen into the system can persist for decades, lengthening the time before sinks regain strength.
Carbon‑removal schemes therefore act less like an optional extra and more like a structural repair kit, needed to relieve pressure already baked in. Yet large‑scale removal is not ready at the speed or cost required.
If nations wait for the alarm of higher temperatures alone, they may overlook mechanical fatigue building under the surface. Jonas likens the risk to pushing a steel beam until microscopic cracks race ahead of visible bending.
Earth stress and hidden damage
The authors hope to weave their rheology framework into coupled climate models so that fatigue dynamics appear alongside temperature and precipitation outputs.
The goal is to identify regions where local shocks, from dieback to ice‑shelf loss, propagate globally.
The researchers also plan to refine sink parameters with satellite and autonomous buoy data, reducing uncertainty in the damping constants.
Better bounds will reveal whether the 1930s shift was a global threshold or the first of several steps.
Ultimately, the approach offers another yardstick for progress: a direct readout of how quickly Earth relaxes once stress is reduced. Watching that number fall may prove as motivating as any temperature curve.
The study is published in the journal Science of the Total Environment.
—–
Like what you read? Subscribe to our newsletter for engaging articles, exclusive content, and the latest updates.
Check us out on EarthSnap, a free app brought to you by Eric Ralls and Earth.com.
Film festivals are unique cultural institutions, spaces to see diverse films by local and global filmmakers and an important market for distributors. These films are often difficult to see, or even know about, outside of festival circuits.
Festivals are also answerable to funders and to different stakeholders’ interests. Cancellations of planned films raise questions about festivals’ roles and accountability to community groups who find certain films objectionable, the wider public, politicians, festival sponsors, audiences, filmmakers and the films themselves.
In September 2024, The Toronto International Film Festival (TIFF) faced a backlash from pro-Ukrainian groups — and former deputy prime minister Chrystia Freeland, who is of Ukrainian descent — when the documentary Russians at War was included in the program.
Read more:
‘Russians at War’ documentary: From the Crimean to the Iraq War, soldier images pose questions about propaganda
The Ukrainian Canadian Congress and other advocates called on TIFF to cancel the film, directed by Russian Canadian Anastasia Trofimova, which they accused of being Russian propaganda.
TIFF did cancel festival screenings after it was “made aware of significant threats to festival operations and public safety,” but once the festival was over, showed Russians at the TIFF Lightbox Theatre.
In November, the Montréal International Documentary Festival (RIDM) cancelled the Canadian premiere of Rule of Stone, directed by Israeli Canadian director Danae Elon. As a film and media professor, I supervised Elon’s research for the film while she pursued a master’s degree at Queen’s University.
RIDM acknowledged Elon’s “personal commitment to criticizing and questioning the state of Israel” through her story about the stone that, by Israeli law, has to be used on the exterior of every new building in Jerusalem.
In the film, Elon examines how, in post-1967 Jerusalem, “architecture and stone are the main weapons in a silent, but extraordinarily effective colonization and dispossession process” of Palestinians.
As a documentarist and a researcher in Israeli and Palestinian media representations of fighters, I have analyzed both films and followed the controversies. Each focuses on contemporary political issues relevant to our understanding of current affairs.
While the reasons for the cancellations are different, in both cases the festivals responded to pressures from community groups, placing the public right to a robust debate at the festival and beyond as secondary.
People protest the screening of ‘Russians at War’ at the Toronto International Film Festival in Toronto in September 2024. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Paige Taylor White
‘Russians at War’
Director Anastasia Trifamova embedded herself in a Russian supply unit, and later a medical team, eventually making her way to the front lines in occupied Ukraine.
Trifamova comes across as a naive filmmaker, using an observational, non-judgmental form of filmmaking common in 21st-century war documentaries, as seen in films like Armadillo and Restrepo (respectively following Danish and U.S. troops in Afghanistan).
As noted by TIFF, Russians was “an official Canada-France co-production with funding from several Canadian agencies,” and Trifamova said she did not seek or receive official permission from the Russian army to film.
The film documents the machination of war, where soldiers are both perpetrators of violence and its victims. It humanizes the soldiers, which understandably can be upsetting to Ukrainian and pro-Ukrainian publics. But should emotions of one group, outraged and incensed as they may be, prevent the public from having the difficult conversations promoted by the film?
Early in the film, Trifamova confronts the soldiers about why they are fighting and they respond with Russian propaganda (fighting Nazism, defending the borders).
Later, soldiers approach Trifamova — on camera — to express doubts about the justification of the war and their presence in Ukraine. The film provides an unflattering view of Russia’s attack on Ukraine, emphasizing the futility of the war and the incredible toll on soldiers and civilians (including some Ukrainian civilians). Russian troops appear untrained and poorly equipped to fight in chaotically managed battles.
Like Armadillo and Restrepo, Russians at War represents the soldiers without judgment and contributes to necessary conversations about war. In my analysis, while Trifamova refrains — in her sporadic voice-over — from condemning the war outright, it is difficult to read the film as Russian propaganda.
While TIFF cited security concerns as the reason for cancellation, security was in place for another film that attracted controversy, Bliss.
A cancellation from such an established festival likely has an effect on how a film is able to circulate. For example, TVO, one of the funders of Russians at War, cancelled its scheduled broadcast days after the TIFF cancellation.
‘Rule of Stone’
Rule of Stone, as noted by RDIM, “critically examines the colonialist project of East Jerusalem following its conquest by Israeli forces in 1967.”
The title references a colonial bylaw to clad building with stone, first introduced by the British, which still exists today.
The film, which examines architecture’s role in creating modern Jerusalem, is led by Elon’s voice-over. It mixes her memories of growing up in 1970s Jerusalem and her reckoning with the “frenzy of building,” which included projects by architect Moshe Safdie, a citizen of Israel, Canada and the United States. Elon recounts that her father, journalist and author Amos Elon, was a close friend of Safdie, as well as legendary Jerusalem mayor Teddy Kolek.
Safdie is among the Israeli architects, architectural historians and planners who Elon interviews. The expansion of Jewish neighbourhoods is contrasted with the restrictions on and disposession of Palestinians in Jerusalem. Multiple scenes show the demolition of Palestinian homes or the aftermath. In intervwoven segments, Izzat Ziadah, a Palestinian stonemason who lives in a stone quarry, gives a tour of what is left of his destroyed home.
Viewers hear how the planning, expansion and building of Jewish neighbourhoods, post-1967, were designed to evoke biblical times. As architectural historian Zvi Efrat notes, the new neighbourhoods look like, or attempt to look like, they were there forever.
‘Rule of Stone’ trailer.
As reported by La Presse, the RIDM cancellation came after the festival received information about the documentary’s partial Israeli financing, something that “embarrassed” them with some of the festival’s partners. Funding for the development of the film came from the Makor Foundation for Israeli Films, which receives support from Israel’s Ministry of Culture and Sport.
Two organizations, the Palestinian Film Institute and Regards Palestiniens, opposed the film’s showing on the basis of their commitment to the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI).
In the organizations’ logic, Israel state funding means a film should be subject to boycott as “PACBI specifically targets Israeli institutional funding in the arts which serves to culturally whitewash and legitimize the Israeli state.”
In my view, this position differs from the PACBI guidelines, which state:
“As a general overriding rule, Israeli cultural institutions, unless proven otherwise, are complicit in maintaining the Israeli occupation and denial of basic Palestinian rights, whether through their silence or actual involvement in justifying, whitewashing or otherwise deliberately diverting attention from Israel’s violations of international law and human rights.”
Makor should be exempted since it regularly funds films that draw attention to Israel’s violations of Palestinian human rights. In 2024 alone, the list includes The Governor, The Village League and Death in Um al hiran.
RIDM’s website does not disclose support for a boycott. In the end, RIDM announced that Elon withdrew her film. She stated: “Screening my film at RIDM does not serve the long-term purpose of the festival, nor is it possible now to address the nuances in our common fight for justice for Palestine. I am deeply saddened and distressed by [what] has brought it to this point.”
To date, the film has not found a cinema in Montréal willing to screen it.
Provoking important conversations
The two festivals’ mission statements promise high-quality films that transform or renew audiences’ relationships to the world.
It is clear why programmers chose both films, since they’re cinematically innovative and provoke important conversations.
However, both festivals silenced these films and signalled to other filmmakers that these festivals are not brave spaces to have difficult and necessary conversations.
Left to right: Michael Jäger, Tianyao Yang, and Vincent Beudez
Awe-inspiring scenes of the Milky Way, dancing aurorae, and serene galaxies all feature on the shortlist for this year’s ZWO Astronomy Photographer of the Year.
The competition is run by Royal Observatory Greenwich, supported by ZWO and in association with BBC Sky at Night Magazine. In 2025, the competition received over 5,500 entries from passionate amateur and dedicated professional photographers, submitted from 69 countries across the globe. Shortlisted images include a moonrise over the Dolomites, red-hued Northern Lights at Mono Lake, California and Comet C/2023 A3 (Tsuchinshan-ATLAS).
The overall winner will take home £10,000 ($13,555). There are also prizes for runners-up £500 ($676) and highly commended £250 ($338) entries. The special prize winners will receive £750 ($1,016). All the winning entrants will receive a one-year subscription to BBC Sky at Night Magazine.
One of this year’s astronomical highlights was the solar eclipse visible from North America. Included in the ZWO Young Astronomy Photographer of the Year category is a 22-megapixel panorama capturing the event. Total Solar Eclipse by Louis Egan shows the different stages of the solar eclipse, photographed from Canada. Further highlights include peaks in solar activity. PengFei Chou’s photograph 500,000 kilometer (311,000 miles) Solar Prominence Eruption shows a massive solar outburst that lasted approximately an hour.
In this year’s competition, The Annie Maunder Prize for Image Innovation has become The Annie Maunder Open Category where entrants can experiment with different approaches to astronomy art, showcasing high concept, creative work. The striking image, Neon Sun by Peter Ward, uses images taken by the Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO) remapped with a more vibrant palette. The same coronal data is turned ’inside out’ to surround the Sun, creating the illusion of it being enclosed in a neon tube.
The ZWO Astronomy Photographer of the Year competition is now in its seventeenth year and returns with an expert panel of judges from the worlds of art and astronomy. The winners of the competition’s nine categories, two special prizes and the overall winner will be announced on Thursday September 11. The winning images will be displayed in an exhibition at the National Maritime Museum from Friday September 12, alongside a selection of exceptional shortlisted images. The competition’s official book, published by Collins in association with Royal Museums Greenwich, will be available exclusively on-site and online at Royal Museums Greenwich from the exhibition opening date. It will then be available more widely from bookstores from Thursday September 25.
Brain metastases from ovarian cancer (BMFOC) are rare but associated with poor prognosis. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of Gamma Knife stereotactic radiosurgery (GKSRS) in managing patients with BMFOC.
Methods
A retrospective analysis was conducted on 22 patients with BMFOC who were treated with GKSRS between January 2015 and May 2019. The median age at the start of treatment was 57.7 years (range, 46–72 years). A total of 70 brain metastases were treated, with each patient having between one and nine metastatic tumors. The mean tumor volume was 3.6 cm3 (range, 0.1–22.7 cm3). The mean peripheral dose was 16 Gy (range, 7–20 Gy), and the mean isodose curve was 54.6% (range, 45–80%).
Results
At 12 months post-GKSRS, 68 metastatic tumors were assessed: 32 (47.1%) showed complete response, 20 (29.4%) had partial response, 14 (20.6%) remained stable, and two (2.9%) progressed, leading to a tumor control rate of 97.1%. No acute or chronic toxicity was observed.
Conclusions
The findings of this study indicate that GKSRS may serve as an effective treatment modality for selected BMFOC patients, offering high intracranial tumor control rates. The data indicate that GKSRS is generally well tolerated, with no significant adverse effects observed in this study. While GKSRS may be a valuable option for managing BMFOC, treatment decisions should be individualized, taking into account factors such as tumor burden, extracranial disease status, performance status, and patient preferences.
The study was recently published in the Neurosurgical Subspecialties .
Neurosurgical Subspecialties (NSSS) is the official scientific journal of the Department of Neurosurgery at Union Hospital of Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology. NSSS aims to provide a forum for clinicians and scientists in the field, dedicated to publishing high-quality and peer-reviewed original research, reviews, opinions, commentaries, case reports, and letters across all neurosurgical subspecialties. These include but are not limited to traumatic brain injury, spinal and spinal cord neurosurgery, cerebrovascular disease, stereotactic radiosurgery, neuro-oncology, neurocritical care, neurosurgical nursing, neuroendoscopy, pediatric neurosurgery, peripheral neuropathy, and functional neurosurgery.
/Public Release. This material from the originating organization/author(s) might be of the point-in-time nature, and edited for clarity, style and length. Mirage.News does not take institutional positions or sides, and all views, positions, and conclusions expressed herein are solely those of the author(s).View in full here.
This has become more apparent following Getty’s withdrawal during the trial’s closing submissions of its primary copyright infringement allegations regarding training and output. This raises the general question of how national copyright laws apply to the training and deployment of AI models around the world.
Getty Images et al. v. Stability AI: background
Getty Images (Getty) filed an action in the UK (and an equivalent in the U.S.) alleging copyright, trademark, and database rights infringement. In the UK action, Getty originally asserted that Stability AI unlawfully copied in the UK millions of images, protected by UK copyright and owned or represented by Getty Images, to train its Stable Diffusion image generator.
It also claimed that there was further unauthorized copying or communication to the public in the UK of a substantial part of its images at the point of use, i.e., in the images output from Stable Diffusion. These claims were, however, withdrawn by Getty on the first day of the trial’s closing submissions.
The importance of where to train AI systems
Stability AI had admitted that at least some Getty images were used to train Stable Diffusion. However, Getty’s difficulty with its training allegation was proving that any infringing act occurred in the UK, i.e., whether Getty’s works were copied in the UK during training such as by downloading them onto hardware in the UK.
Stability AI had argued that no infringing acts took place in the UK in training Stable Diffusion because Stable Diffusion was wholly developed and trained outside of the UK and, as such, there was no infringement of UK copyright in this respect.
As this claim has now been withdrawn, we are unlikely to get a judgment on that issue. Nevertheless, it is of real importance to any company deciding where to develop and deploy its AI models. Copyright protection is territorial, and at a high level, the jurisdiction where any infringing acts take place affects the risks of copyright infringement, in particular which defenses to copyright infringement are available.
Currently, different countries have differing approaches to exempting copyright reproduction for text and data mining (TDM) purposes:
Japan and Singapore allow TDM for commercial purposes.
The EU allows copyright owners to opt-out works from commercial TDM.
The UK currently only allows TDM for non-commercial research. However, as explained in our previous blog post, it is considering introducing an exception for commercial TDM with the ability for rights holders to reserve their rights (an “opt-out”).
The U.S. takes an entirely different approach, deciding on the particular facts of each case whether the use in training could be considered to be “fair.” In one case, the use of legal headnotes to train a competitor’s AI tool was held not to be fair use given the particular use case1. On the other hand, in a recent federal court judgment in California, AI foundation model developer Anthropic has been allowed to assert fair use against copyright claims for training its Claude AI models on copyrighted books that Anthropic had lawfully acquired2.
However, the judge in that case ruled that the same “fair use” argument would not apply in respect of Anthropic’s collection and use of pirated works, which will be the subject of a separate damages hearing (with potentially significant amounts at issue).
Meanwhile, in a separate federal court proceeding in California against Meta, the judge concluded that “fair use” was likely not available given the market dilution impact of large language models (although the judge found in favor of Meta for other reasons)3.
Accordingly, reproducing copyright works during AI training may be exempted in countries with more expansive exceptions, but it will only be possible to fully take advantage of such expansive exemptions if one can restrict all acts of reproduction to that country and nothing is downloaded or stored elsewhere.
Furthermore, these TDM exemptions will only apply (if at all) to the steps of training the AI model. Subsequent acts of reproduction or communication to the public following completion of the AI training may involve new infringing acts that may not be covered by the TDM exceptions. These may include, for example, further reproduction (e.g., uploading protected content) or making any data resulting from TDM activities available to the public (e.g., making it accessible on the internet).
Deployment
Despite the withdrawal of the training claim, Stability AI will not necessarily avoid UK copyright liability. This is because Getty continues with two secondary infringement claims that cover the deployment of Stable Diffusion in the UK:
Stable Diffusion is alleged to be an article that is, and that Stability AI knows or has reason to believe, is an infringing copy of Getty’s copyright works, which has been imported into the UK (s23 CDPA ’88).
Stability AI is alleged to have possessed and distributed in the course of business, sold, offered, or exposed for sale, an article that is, and that it knows or has reason to believe, is an infringing copy (s33 CDPA ’88).
These allegations raise some interesting legal questions:
Can an intangible AI model like Stable Diffusion that is accessible from the internet ever constitute an “article” capable of being imported or dealt with in the course of business?
Can the AI model itself (like Stable Diffusion) be said to be an infringing copy (i.e., a substantial reproduction) of one or more works that were used to train the model?
What if Stable Diffusion does not retain internally in the model any copies of any of the works on which it was trained in material form?
Is it sufficient that the model weights (the associations and patterns developed through the training process) contain an abstracted representation of all the model’s training data?
The answer to these questions will depend on the court’s interpretation of UK legislation as much as the technology itself. As with all AI-related legal risks, it will be technology-led and the decision in this case may not be relevant to AI models trained using different techniques.
Is an AI model an infringing copy if its making constituted a copyright infringement or would have constituted a copyright infringement if it were made in the UK?
Another fundamental requirement is that Stability AI knew or had reason to believe that Stable Diffusion was an infringing copy. Is it sufficient that it is common knowledge that photographs are protected by copyright, and that copyright in them would be infringed by copying them, or by importation of infringing copies of them? Or did Stability AI hold a reasonable belief that Stable Diffusion was not an infringing copy because none of the model, source code, or output was a substantial reproduction of any copyright work from its training dataset?
Other AI developers need to pay close attention to the court’s ruling on these issues because it should clarify whether AI models trained in other countries will infringe under UK copyright law, and if so, how. The UK government in its recent Consultation on Copyright and AI specifically noted that it wanted to avoid UK-trained AI models from being disadvantaged compared to those trained elsewhere but operating within the UK.
Takeaways
International copyright disputes are never straightforward and those involving global AI operations are no exception. The Getty case has illustrated how important it is for a successful claim to establish an infringing act in the relevant jurisdiction, and this will depend not only on the specific techniques and datasets used to train the model, but also the differing exceptions to copyright infringement around the world.
The crux of the (UK) Getty case is now whether UK copyright law bites on an AI model that was trained elsewhere but made available to UK consumers. Even if most AI training currently occurs in the U.S. or China, the UK remains a valuable commercial market and developers wishing to sell into it need to take note.
This is at the same time, of course, as following the many ongoing proceedings in other markets (particularly the U.S., where much of the AI training takes place) as well as assessing the impact of the EU AI Act, which requires AI developers offering their products in the EU to have complied with EU copyright laws when training their models (even if trained outside the EU). It is a very complex and fast-moving global picture.
Footnotes
1. Thomson Reuters v. ROSS Intelligence No. 1:20-cv-613-SB (E.D. Pa. Feb. 11, 2025)—a summary judgment.
2. Andrea Bartz v. Anthropic C 24-05417 WHA
3. Richard Kadrey et al. v. Meta Platforms Inc. No. 23-cv-03417-VC
Amazon Prime Day week has begun, running from July 8th to 11th, so expect lots of deals flying around during the massive online shopping event. Amazon Prime Day is best known for its deals on electronics, so it should come as no surprise that there are some great discounts on earphones.
If you’re looking for an audio accomplishment to your indoor training or just some music as you go through your day, one Amazon Prime Day deal that caught our eye was this discount on Apple’s AirPods 4 with Active Noise Cancellation earphones.
These aren’t to be confused with the standard AirPods 4, choosing the version with Active Noise Cancellation is worth it if you plan on using them in noisy environments, like riding on a smart trainer with a fan blowing at your face. I have found Apple’s noise cancellation is very effective, with three modes allowing you to tailor how much background noise you want to hear. There is also a voice awareness mode which lowers the volume and enhances voices when you start speaking.
Get your Apple AirPods 4 with Active Noise Cancellation for 34% off at Amazon.
The earbuds have five hours of battery life, and when combined with the charging case, Apple says it will give you up to 30 hours of listening time. If you get caught short on battery life, then a quick five-minute charge in the case tops up the AirPods for another hour of listening.
You don’t need to worry about wearing them on a sweaty indoor training session or getting caught in the rain, either, as they are rated to IP54.
Most importantly, the sound quality is excellent, whether you’re listening to music or podcasts, and if you are an Apple user, they will integrate seamlessly with all your devices.
If you have had your eye on Apple’s AirPods 4 with ANC, take advantage of this Amazon Prime Day deal, which sees them discounted to their lowest price ever.
In the US, Amazon has knocked a generous 34% off, saving $60 of the retail price. Although the discount isn’t as high for UK shoppers, the 17% saving is still the best price for Apple’s AirPods 4 with Active Noise Cancellation.
Apple AirPods 4 with Active Noise Cancellation Amazon Prime Day US deal
Apple AirPods 4 with Active Noise Cancellation Amazon Prime Day UK deal
Why would you go for the AirPods 4 with Active Noise Cancellation over Apple’s other options?
In my opinion, the Active Noise Cancellation is well worth the extra outlay, but there’s another handy feature that sets it apart. The Active Noise Cancellation version also features Find My technology, which works just like Apple’s AirTags (there’s an Amazon Prime Day AirTags deal for those too), so you can track your earphones if they go missing.
We didn’t feature the AirPod 4’s in our best headphones for cycling guide, instead, we opted for the AirPod Pro 2 earphones, which are also discounted for Prime Day. Truth be told, though, the AirPods 4 with Active Noise Cancellation share a lot of the top-spec features. The AirPod Pro 2 gets an extra hour of battery life, the case features MagSafe wireless charging and mini touchpads rather than buttons to skip tracks and control the volume. If you can live without these features, save a bit of cash and get the AirPods 4 with Active Noise Cancellation.
To take advantage of the Amazon Prime cycling deals, you’ll need to be signed up for Amazon Prime. Amazon offers a free trial period for new users, but you can cancel your trial before the first payment is taken.
All the evidence so far suggests Portuguese footballer Diogo Jota was driving when his car crashed on a Spanish motorway, and he was likely speeding, say police.
The 28-year-old Liverpool player was killed with his brother André Silva, 25, when their Lamborghini car had a suspected tyre blowout in northwestern Zamora province early last Thursday.
Spain’s Guardia Civil police force said at the time the car had apparently been overtaking on the A52 motorway near Palacios de Sanabria when it left the road and burst into flames.
“Everything also points to a possible excessive speed beyond the speed limit of the road [highway],” said Zamora’s local traffic police.
Police said they had studied the marks left by one of the Lamborghini’s tyres and that “all the tests carried out so far indicate that the driver of the crashed vehicle was Diogo Jota”.
The expert report is being prepared for the courts on the accident, and their investigation is understood to have been made more complex by the intensity of the fire that almost completely destroyed the car.
The accident happened 11 days after Jota had married his long-term partner Rute Cardoso in Portugal. The couple had three children.
The brothers had been heading to the Spanish port of Santander so Jota could return to Liverpool for pre-season training.
Their funeral took place in their hometown of Gondomar, near Porto at the weekend.
Tyre marks were reportedly visible about 100m (330ft) from the moment of impact.
Although there had been suggestions that the asphalt on the road was uneven where the crash took place, police told Spanish media it was not an accident “black spot” and the road should have been driveable beyond the speed limit of 120km/h (75mph).
