Dear Gettyvictim120:
Thanks for the great post reminding all of us that taking the image yourself is the only 100% safe method. The law is actually set up pretty fairly, but could be improved. If you have a filed copyright (registered with the Copyright Office) you may be entitled to a whole host of statutory damages including legal fees, costs, etc. But there is a provision in the law that allows the federal court to reduce all of the damages to $200 per infringement if the court finds that it is an "innocent infringement." If you don't have a registered copyright, then you are entitled to nothing but your "actual damages." You are not entitled to legal fees and costs. All you get is "How were you financially harmed by the infringement?" And that makes sense. But Getty has twisted this around by demanding statutory-like damages when they don't have a copyright. They also keep reminding all of us that you don't have to have a registered copyright to enforce a copyright and that lack of knowledge of copyright is no excuse. What they won't admit is that while all of the above is true, it is also true that lack of registration and lack of intent do make a difference with respect to how much you are entitled to receive in damages.
The only change I would suggest in US law (IMHO as the kids say) is to adopt a provision like they have in place in the UK that provides for no monetary damage for a one-time innocent infringement. Perhaps that's something we should start working for on this site - a petition to your congressman and senator to amend the Copyright Act of 1976 to help it catch up with the digital age. It's a thought.