Putting copyright matters aside, there is an issue of misrepresentation.
A case that would be interesting would be one where Getty had represented that they were acting on behalf of an exclusive copyright holder, and where a third party had acquiesced to those demands, only to subsequently learn that Getty was not the rights holder.
This is about basic contract issues. Getty falsely represented themselves to be X, with the use of aggressive language, leading to a contract being formed based on invalid premises. If it is a pattern of practice, it starts to look like a RICO matter.
A case that would be interesting would be one where Getty had represented that they were acting on behalf of an exclusive copyright holder, and where a third party had acquiesced to those demands, only to subsequently learn that Getty was not the rights holder.
This is about basic contract issues. Getty falsely represented themselves to be X, with the use of aggressive language, leading to a contract being formed based on invalid premises. If it is a pattern of practice, it starts to look like a RICO matter.