The interesting part here is what Getty will do about the highly derivative 'new work' the infringing blog created as a public domain substitute for Getty's IP.
The image at the bottom of the article? It's not the same penguin it's a cartoon drawing. The feet are different, the eyes are different, the beak is different, the wings are different. The only thing similar is the pose.
It might fall under a permitted derivative work but it looks like they just did a freehand drawing of the photo explicitly intending to provide an equivalent substitute. If it doesn't qualify as a derivative work it might be willful copyright infringement.
Is that really sufficiently derivative for legal problems?