Re: So they can withdraw library images or plaster them with ads?
Ah, the pitiable whingeing of freetard entitlement, never a thought for the victim.
Much as I loathe and detest Getty, sending out those scary letters was probably the best - in fact the only constructive - thing they have done.
As a pro photographer I am sick to death of my photos being stolen and used in ways I would never permit at any price. I had put hundreds of pictures online for people to look at and hopefully enjoy, and from 1996 until a few years ago people understood what was fair and what was not. Now I can't do that any more. In 2012 I did a sample audit and found infringing uses outnumbered legit 14:1; all had metadata stripped, almost none linked back to me, a majority claimed to be copyright of the thieves.
Naturally, like any shop in a neighbourhood of looters, this is untenable. I've taken the internet's advice that 'if you don't want it stolen, don't put it on the internet'. Of course this is elective suicide, but you leave me no alternative.
According to you, I am supposed to spend the next several unpaid man-years sending out 7,000 DMCA take-down notices. Frankly I'd have preferred that Getty send the boys round with a nailgun. However this is now academic: this embed wheeze is a play to become the Google of image libraries and Getty are back on form as a fat destructive parasite. It's another nail in the coffin for professional creators, another neoliberal triumph of siphoning wealth uphill c/o the seductive fib of 'free', when every penny of ad revenue is a tax on goods and services that nobody can escape. It's just an illusion that some other mug will pay. Wake the fuck up, internet. You get what you pay for, and handing control to advertisers, axegrinders and corporations is not freedom of any sort.