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.

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.