[teh]

I think this is a common misunderstanding. The images are in the public domain. Nothing stops Getty (or you, or anyone) from selling them, even though you can just use them for free.

The value-add service that Getty offers is legal indemnification, i.e. they cover the legal costs if the image turns out to be copyrighted after all. To offer this service they spend some time and money upfront to research images' copyright status.

Whether you think that's good value for money is up to you.

[mkl]

> they spend some time and money upfront to research images' copyright status.

From the discussion a few days ago, that doesn't seem to be the case. It seems to be more like they just gamble on not getting caught most of the time. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22340547

[soneil]

The other issue brought up recently is when they try to enforce their licencing of public domain images, which is a lot more shady. Selling you a licence, sure, why not. Complaining you’re using a public domain image without getty’s licence? Threatening legal action over the same?

There may be a lot of value to a lot of their portfolio. But there’s some warty rough edges too.

[supermatt]

I don't misunderstand it at all. I am aware its legal. I just think that getty should be completely transparent about the copyright status, instead of granting a restricted license to use something they don't own the rights to grant in the first place.

[blazespin]

If they really do indemnify you, it's actually a pretty huge benefit. It's pretty easy to use content that is 'royalty free' but then get sued later on when you find out it actually wasn't.