> Yes, of course.
In a particular test case?
The whole article is all about how this layman's intuition about the licensing situation in this case is not how you'd think.
> These images are in the public domain. No one is required to pay Getty and/or Getty US a penny to copy and use them. And Getty has no right to sell copyright licenses for them, as it has done and is doing.
> The first sentence is true, the second, not so much.
What do you know that the author doesn't? Is there a particular test case that settled it?