>Getty took public domain images and added arbitrary usage limits on them by (fraudulently) claiming to be the sole copyright holder.
The article states this is not the case.
"It acknowledges that the images are in the public domain, but still maintains that it has the right to charge a fee for distributing the material. “Distributing and providing access to public domain content is different to asserting copyright ownership of it,” Getty says."
They are perfectly within their rights to charge for distributing their copy of the material. Nobody claimed they weren't. What they did instead is claim exclusive rights of distribution over the the other public domain works as well.
So, yes what they say is perfectly true, but also entirely irrelevant.
Your name is diffeomorphism, so I assume you like math, and care about accuracy.
You started with this:
>>Getty took public domain images and added arbitrary usage limits on them by (fraudulently) claiming to be the sole copyright holder.
They did not claim copyright as you stated. Now you've changed to this:
>What they did instead is claim exclusive rights of distribution over the the other public domain works as well.
You originally stated they claimed they were the sole copyright holder. They did not. Moving the goalposts or downvoting does not change your original claim is incorrect. Accuracy matters, in math and in public discourse.
Fine, they claimed they were the exclusive "distribution rights holder". And then argued that you don't need to claim copyright to distribute and sublicense PD works. Yeah, fine. But that is irrelevant. The "exclusive" is what is the issue and their comment does not address that at all.
The article states this is not the case.
"It acknowledges that the images are in the public domain, but still maintains that it has the right to charge a fee for distributing the material. “Distributing and providing access to public domain content is different to asserting copyright ownership of it,” Getty says."