You can get an even better source for the Perfect 10 case here:
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1327768.html
Things to note:
1) The 9th circuit upheld the lower court on the server rule. So both the lower court and the upper court saw things the same way.
2) The 9th Circuit is not the US Supreme Court, so possibly, another circuit would rule the other way. But it would be a perverse uphill battle for Getty, particularly since, depending on your use, it might be fair use even if you hosted on your server.
So, assuming you are in the US, Perfect 10 v. Amazon is the case you would mention. Do not expect the guys at Getty to immediately slap themselves on the forhead and drop it.

For this reason, I want to report Getty's response to my mentioning Perfect 10 in my first response to Getty.
In their response to my first letter, Sam Brown, Copyright Compliance Specialist, Getty Images License Compliance wrote
"Copyright law requires permission from the photographer—or an authorized representative of the photographer—before an image can be copied or displayed. In your legal example of Perfect 10 v. Amazon.com it is important to remember that Google and Amazon’s display of the imagery at issue is protected by the DMCA. In this case, however, the DMCA provides no such protection to your organization."
Note: Sam put display in bold. (I had used the word "display" in my first response. If you use it, it might be wise to use scarequotes "display". That's what the lower court did in their discussions of the definition of "display" as intended in US copyright law vs. every day use.

)
My response to this part of his letter was
Mr Sam Brown,
Thank you for your cordial respond to my Nov. 29 email discussing your GettyImages demand letter dated Nov. 24, 2011, which discussed a case your company has assigned a case number 1144-28, and involves an image GettyImages describes as "Catalog Image No eb2511-001". You are correct that I mistook the text of UK law for a portion of US law and so that portion of my response has no relevance.
However, it is still the case that there has been no infringement with regard to the image in question. I will begin by focusing on this point which I made and which is based on the 9th circuit court of appeal rulings in Perfect 10 v. Amazon :
With regard to the image discussed in your letter, there has been no infringement of US copyright law on my part.
I believe the substance of what I communicated regarding the meaning of the ruling in Perfect 10 v. Amazon which is, in essence this: When a site like Google hosts html that instructs a users
images in Perfect 10 v. Google and Perfect 10 v. Amazon, my web page included html that instructed a browser to point to an image at a third party site. Under US copyright law, this action does not violate the display right of the copyright holder and it does not violate their right to copy.
I note you provided your opinion about whether DMCA offers protection to my blog. I believe introducing this issue is irrelevant to the matter at hand. However, because you brought this up, I believe I need to respond.
First: I have not investigated whether DMCA protects my hobby blog and so do not know whether your interpretation of DMCA and my blog is correct. I reserve the right to make this determination at such time as it appears to be relevant to any discussion regarding Getty Images "Catalog Image No eb2511-001".
Second: I have read over both the 2006 Ruling regarding PERFECT 10, Plaintiff, v. GOOGLE, INC., et al., Defendants from "United States District Court, C.D. California" and that regarding Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., et al. 487 F.3d 701, No. 06-55405 (9th Cir., May 16, 2007). I note that DMCA is mentioned and discussed by the District court in footnote 10 of the District Court ruling where they say,
"Google also contends that it qualifies for protection under each of the four DMCA safe harbors, 17 U.S.C. § 512(a)-(d). In light of the ensuing analysis concluding that Google is neither vicariously nor contributorily liable, it is unnecessary for the Court to deal with the DMCA issues."
The plain meaning of the text indicates that any protection that might have been afforded Google by the existence of DMCA was irrelevant the courts ruling because Google had not violated any of the copyright holders rights under copyright. I have not copied or displayed "Catalog Image No eb2511-001" as those terms are defined by US copyright law So, whether Google, Amazon or I are or are not protected by DMAC in the event that we might inadvertently violate someone's copyright would seem irrelevant. I'm puzzled that you brought your opinion about the applicability of DMAC up.
I would now like to point out that in my first letter I also brought up the issue of fair use. In the event that GettyImages might believe contrary to court rulings that including html instructions to an image at a third party site constituted infringing use under US copyright law, my particular use would in any case fall under fair use for reasons I mentioned in my first email to you. You have not address this point.
Because you have so far stated you do not consider the matter closed, I believe must request information from GettyImages. While continuing to maintain that I have neither copied nor displayed "Catalog Image No eb2511-001" as those words are defined by US copyright law, I request the following information regarding GettyImages "Catalog Image No eb2511-001" required to ascertain whether GettyImages has standing to pursue any claim or negotiate any settlement and to assess whether the suggested amount of the settlement would be reasonable.
The letter then transitioned to asking for information that might provide me some basis for estimating how much damages might be if hotlinking was an infringement. But that's not relevant to your question about hotlinking. Perfect 10 is.
Mind you: I'm not a lawyer. But the footnotes in the rulings make it perfectly clear that while Google and Amazon presented
numerous reasons including the possibility that DMAC would have protected them, the 9th circuit didn't say it was ok for Google and Amazon to hotlink owing to DMAC protection. The lower court said they weren't even going to bother to figure out if DMAC protected them because it didn't matter. Hotlinking (i.e. framing) doesn't violate copyright. (The difference between framing and hotlinking is when framing, Google essentially hotlinks the
entire page displaying without copying. In contrast, hotlinking is used when you only hotlink the site.)
Also: In my opinion, if Getty decides to go after anyone for hotlinking, and someone goes to court, amicus briefs are going to come flying out of legal blogs all over the place. Oh. And Google might not want a hotlinking case to go south in another circuit court.
