I disagree on the fundamental point that this was misrepresentation. They had every right to enforce a claim, they were just stupid to assume others wouldn't have their own claims.
Now, if I claimed this seriously, most people would laugh me out of the room. But some might not and actually pay up. Especially if I threatened to sue them if they didn't pay up and the "I" was a big, well-known company.
What Getty does is not just muddy grey misrepresentation, it's outright fraudulent.
- They say it's copyright infringement in their letter. It is not.
- They say you need a valid license to use the image. You do not.
- They demand a license fee. Not a "you used our service to find and download this public domain work" fee. A license fee.
- There is no indication whatsoever Getty/Alamy had any role in how the photograph got onto the website of Highsmith's foundation. Given it's her own photograph, it's unlikely she used Getty at all. But they do not claim a fee for using their services anyway, they claim a license fee based on copyright law, which they cannot.
Highsmith gave up her copyright and cannot demand attribution or damages under the copyright law, so I agree with the court there. What she instead should have done is file a criminal complaint and a civil suit regarding the attempt to defraud her.
You see my photo being used in a national advert. The advertiser is not your customer. Again, you think you're the only person with the right to redistribute this photo, and infer that your rights to a licensing fee is being infringed.
As I say, they were stupid to treat this as if they had an exclusive license, but they had every right to redistribute under their license and ask for a license fee. Just as the recipient of that demand had the right to tell them go away.
This is not what happened. They never were granted the rights to sublicense it. It is in the public domain. They can use it, redistribute it, or charge you if you somehow use their services to do things with it, or even create derivative works which they then own. But they cannot relicense it or claim they own it, or represent the owner.
Now, the only thing I would let them bring forward as their argument is if they themselves were defrauded by somebody claiming ownership of the photograph. I see no indication that this is what had happened, tho.
This is not what happened. They were granted the rights to sublicense it. Placing a piece of work in public domain automatically grants others to do whatever they want with it including sublicensing it.
Happy now?
The problem isn't that Getty is trying to license an image, the problem is Getty is contacting people already using a public domain image and trying to get them to pay them money to use it.
That's sort of like me selling you a driving license - when you already have one, and I don't actually have any authority to grant or rescind that permission either way. I mean; sure... you will have the permission after the sale, but it's at least a pretty dubious construction.