With traditional stock agencies, of which Getty owns many, they are under contractual obligation to the photographers whose photographs they represent. What this means is that they owe photographers money when their images are used. They are under contractual obligation to go after entities that are using their photographs without paying -- they need to establish to the photographer whose pictures were stolen that they are doing everything in their power to protect their work. Getty's pockets are deep -- expecting them to go under is sort of like expecting Microsoft to go under. They are not going to stop going after the little guys who didn't know -- they can't. The lawsuits from stock photographers who have felt that their images are not protected by the contracts they have with Getty won't let them. Courts have traditionally awarded 6 figure settlements and more to photographers who have been abused by stock agencies. Courts might award small amounts to Getty from small site owners who claim they don't know better, but it's not the money that they're getting from small site owners that forces Getty to undertake these cases -- it's the protection against the bigger cases of photographers suing them.