[Zarel]

You get permission from Getty to use the image.

Copyright of derivative works is additive: If you want to use an interesting photo of a sculpture, you need permission from both the photographer and from the sculptor.

In this case, Getty represents the photographer, but you still need permission from the sculptor.

Getty's license claims "Who owns the content? All of the licensed content is owned by either Getty Images or its content suppliers."

That line is wrong, of course, but every license comes with a limitation of liability so you can't sue them for being wrong: "Limitation of Liability. GETTY IMAGES WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU OR ANY OTHER PERSON OR ENTITY FOR ANY LOST PROFITS, PUNITIVE, SPECIAL, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, INCIDENTAL OR OTHER SIMILAR DAMAGES, COSTS OR LOSSES ARISING OUT OF THIS AGREEMENT, EVEN IF GETTY IMAGES HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES, COSTS OR LOSSES. SOME JURISDICTIONS DO NOT PERMIT THE EXCLUSION OR LIMITATION OF IMPLIED WARRANTIES OR LIABILITY."

:/

[chrischen]

So basically getty did not own the full equity to the image but tried to sell it as if so anyways...

Seems like Getty caused damages to the scultpor. Why wasn’t getty sued for profiting off the scultor’s work?