I don't think Getty is giving away anything here. All they are doing is launching an affiliate program that they do not have to pay for. "Non-profit publishers" get to embed Getty images for free with links back to Getty where people can buy images.

If the supplier of the image pulls out of Getty then presumably the image switches over to an ad for Getty and the publisher is left with a bunch of holes in their content. Even while the image is still there it sounds like it will be Getty branded somehow in the embed code. What professional site is going to want Getty branding in their site and potential holes in it that they have to go around and fix periodically?

I'd assume that is someone uses an image without embedding it then Getty will still go after them for monetary damages.

>>don't you think there will be more claims coming for innocent misuse?

What is "innocent misuse"?

I've never dealt with Getty as a buyer or supplier so have no experience on wither side. If someone finds an image on the web and assumes they can use it for free, is that innocent misuse or is it licensing something from Getty and then finding an additional use for it later without going back to Getty to pay for it?

Before getting into photography I always thought, its just an image. What's the big deal if I copy it and put it in my site or blog? Nobody loses anything.

Being on the image producer side when it can take $10,000 worth of photo equipment to get an image not to mention the gas, travel, lodging, timing, hiking, weather and everything else that may have to be endured to get an image everyone would want to use, it starts to become more clear as to why someone would sue for monetary damages when someone finds an image and decides to use it without paying for it. It may have cost $10,000 out of pocket and taken a week to get the images in the first place.

If someone want to use images for whatever reason they should either take them personally, license them or make absolutely sure that they are in fact free to use for whatever the desired purpose is.

If they don't do that is it unreasonable to expect to get served with some sort of legal papers or at least some kind of request to either take down the image or add credit and a link as artists will often do when they find something of theirs used without permission or compensation?

What is "innocent misuse"?

In this case, most likely when someone misunderstands the complex terms (with lots of grey areas) that define the conditions for free use.

What is "innocent misuse"?

In this case, most likely when someone misunderstands the complex terms (with lots of grey areas) that define the conditions for free use.

I'm pretty sure that anyone with a brain cell active knows that "if I didn't shoot that pic, or draw it, paint it, I didn't make it" has no leg to stand on.

That said, there's a ton by dozens of copyright and royalty free images so yes... small confusion... small, but:

No one co-opting an image from the web without asking should every cry foul if they are caught doing it.

I'm thinking Getty is gonna clean up with copyright-violation fees from this deal.

@tangor, you are missing my point here. I am talking about someone using Getty embedding but breaking some of the terms restricting how you can embed and on what sites.

I'm pretty sure that anyone with a brain cell active knows that "if I didn't shoot that pic, or draw it, paint it, I didn't make it"

People here, yes. The average Facebook poster, Tweeter, small scale blogger, not so much.

@ken_b I rather suspect Getty are thinking the same.

When it comes to Getty images, I could see 'innocent misuse' by people who hear the news but may not be sure what it means to embed it. As a result Getty will probably have the opportunity to go after more people because of that.

They aren't the first site to make images available so long as someone embeds them but probably the most aggressive if someone does it wrong.