> "CixxFive argues that it has standing to sue because it licensed some of these public domain images. But ... it's not clear how that's Getty's fault."
Surely intentionally misrepresenting the images as being wholly owned and copyrighted by Getty makes it their fault. They're deceiving the customer outright even if they're trying to be subtle about it. Behaving as if Getty is totally free of responsibility from this is just playing make-believe where we all pretend that nothing ethically reprehensible is happening.
It seems pretty clear to me that they're talking about Getty's actual legal liability here, not making a moral judgment on whether what they're doing is wrong. In fact, two paragraphs later they say-
> I'm certainly sensitive to the slimy practices of Getty Images, and claiming that public domain images are available for license (at very high fees) is very slimy. But it's not at all clear that it's against the law.
Surely intentionally misrepresenting the images as being wholly owned and copyrighted by Getty makes it their fault. They're deceiving the customer outright even if they're trying to be subtle about it. Behaving as if Getty is totally free of responsibility from this is just playing make-believe where we all pretend that nothing ethically reprehensible is happening.