> would still be subject to arbitrary usage limits.
Didn't the ruling achieve the exact opposite? Getty took public domain images and added arbitrary usage limits on them by (fraudulently) claiming to be the sole copyright holder.
Taking the images and using them for whatever is fine, taking them and then trying to forbid anybody else from taking them (the originals, not getty's copies) is not and unrelated to the license.
Didn't the ruling achieve the exact opposite? Getty took public domain images and added arbitrary usage limits on them by (fraudulently) claiming to be the sole copyright holder.
Taking the images and using them for whatever is fine, taking them and then trying to forbid anybody else from taking them (the originals, not getty's copies) is not and unrelated to the license.