If memory servers, according to a post written not too long ago by Oscar, Getty Images' legal team has used the same arguments that many ELI readers offer as defenses when Getty has been caught infringing a photographer's copyright.
What?
Getty Images -- the grand defender of its photographers is itself a copyright infringer?
Getty Images -- just another scum of the earth image thief who put a thumbnail on a secondary page of a website getting a total of 132 monthly views from 17 unique visitors?
Well, no. Actually a French agency, The Washington Post, and Getty Images have been sued for $120,000,000 for what was a major copyright infringement. Story with most recent update info I could find is at...
http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/news/2236638/agence-francepresse-infringed-on-photographers-copyright-in-landmark-twitter-caseOf particular interest from the above story:
Getty Images' Direct LiabilityThe facts and arguments: "Getty claims that it cannot be liable because it is entitled to the benefit of a safe-harbor under the DMCA, one that covers infringement claims that arise 'by reason of the storage at the direction of a user material that resides on a system or network controlled or operated by or for a service provider'." In effect, since Getty Images has an automated system to stock and sell AFP's images, it cannot be held liable for copyright infringement, the company says.
The judge's ruling: "In order to qualify for the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act safe harbors, a party must meet a set of threshold criteria. Most importantly for purposes of the present motions, the party seeking the benefit of the safe harbor must be a 'service provider', defined in pertinent part as 'a provider of online services or network access, or the operator of facilities therefor'." In this case, however, the Court has encountered an issue of fact regarding whether Getty qualifies as a service provider. While Getty's argument is that it "merely provides a file hosting service for AFP's images", the record before the Court "contains evidence from which a jury could infer that Getty does not, in fact, simply host AFP's images", especially since Morel has presented evidence that Getty's employees were actively involved in the licensing of the photos.
Getty of course rejects all arguments, explanations, and defenses when they're demanding $780 and up from Mom and Pop website owners but hypocritically uses many of the same arguments, explanations, and defenses when trying to defend lawsuits against their own alleged egregious violations.
This kind of arrogance and utter hypocrisy of copyright trolls and speculative invoicers is a big reason I despise the
people cruel reptilian-brained money suckers who earn their livings extorting money over thumbnail images most likely used innocently while pretending all the time to be lilly white defenders of holy copyright.