Your name is diffeomorphism, so I assume you like math, and care about accuracy.
You started with this:
>>Getty took public domain images and added arbitrary usage limits on them by (fraudulently) claiming to be the sole copyright holder.
They did not claim copyright as you stated. Now you've changed to this:
>What they did instead is claim exclusive rights of distribution over the the other public domain works as well.
You originally stated they claimed they were the sole copyright holder. They did not. Moving the goalposts or downvoting does not change your original claim is incorrect. Accuracy matters, in math and in public discourse.
Fine, they claimed they were the exclusive "distribution rights holder". And then argued that you don't need to claim copyright to distribute and sublicense PD works. Yeah, fine. But that is irrelevant. The "exclusive" is what is the issue and their comment does not address that at all.
You started with this:
>>Getty took public domain images and added arbitrary usage limits on them by (fraudulently) claiming to be the sole copyright holder.
They did not claim copyright as you stated. Now you've changed to this:
>What they did instead is claim exclusive rights of distribution over the the other public domain works as well.
You originally stated they claimed they were the sole copyright holder. They did not. Moving the goalposts or downvoting does not change your original claim is incorrect. Accuracy matters, in math and in public discourse.