Here's the understanding that I currently have:
Getty Images is an agency that licences photographs for various uses. In the listings you have provided, it lists as a source collections which it has actually purchased. One such source is the Michael Ochs Archives. According to Wikipedia, Michael Ochs is Phil Ochs' brother, who orignally collected photographs of musicians as a hobby, and became known as a source for such photos. In 2007, he sold his collection to Getty. So where Getty lists a source, that source is meant to provide...what's the word...cachet? The Ochs Archive was apparently known as one of the most preeminent collections out there, and Getty is merely invoking the name of the collection as context. Similarly, David Redfern is a photographer who photographed many musicians; according to
http://www.davidredfern.com/images/vintage/ he sold the block of his library to Getty Images.
Getty is a stock photography agency. In the digital age, it licenses digital image files of varying resolution for varying uses at varying prices.
I'll admit, I still have plenty of questions about this myself. There are other issues about which I may have an answer. But here goes some (possible) answers:
Aretha Franklin is, of course, alive and well. If somebody wanted to use this photograph in some type of advertisement, implying that Franklin was endorsing the product in question, that would technically be a trademark, not a copyright violation. The Lanham Act, a federal law which covers trademarks, would require that Franklin prove that us of the photo misled consumers into believing Franklin was endorsing the product or service in question. Celebrities, however, have historically had difficult proving this, having better luck asserting their common law right to publicity, which would require a lesser showing from Franklin--only that her likeness had been used without her consent for commercial gain and to her economic detriment.
Again, Franklin is alive and well. In certain states, such as New York, her right to publicity would die with her, and her heirs would be unable to enforce use of such a photo.
As to the photo itself: Somebody owns the copyright to each photo. Presumably, Getty either owns it, or have themselves been granted a licence to exclusively license the photo from the copyright holder. I guess the question I have at this point would be: If, fifty years ago, Michael Ochs had acquired a photo of Aretha Franklin, added it to his collection, and then subsequently sold his collection to Getty--but neither took the photograph nor was assigned the copyright via written agreement with the original copyright holder--how did Getty wind up with the copyright?
My best guess is that Getty has somehow managed to track down the copyright holder for most, if not all of the images it has. Another huge, legislatively unresolved area of copyright law which has been exacerbated by the internet/digital age, is the area of orphaned works--books, photographs and artwork in which a copyright certainly exists, but the identity of the copyright holder is unknown, photographs being a prime example. In the U.S., legislation has been drafted which attempts to enable a party seeking to republish or otherwise copy an orphaned work to use that work once it has conducted a "reasonable search" for the copyright owner or met a similar statutory requirement. However, such a bill has yet to enter into law in the United States, and even if it does--most of the rest of the world has yet to adopt an orphaned works provision as well.
So common sense is telling me that, given the potential of a large statuutory damage award for copyright infringement, it would at least seem likely that Getty would not put up an orphaned work at all--they they engaged in proper research and tracked down the rightful copyright owner. The thing is--how often do you hear about somebody buying an expensive car, or piece of artwork or collectible of some sort, and then discover that it was stolen? I would assume that a party either looking to spend a lot of money on a high-ticket item, or in the business of selling such items would engage in title research as a matter of routine, but it apparently doesn't always happen.
Finally, I'm still not clear if a photo or clipping used to illustrate a CD booklet would be considered fair use, although there may yet be another IP issue (or ten) that I have not yet discovered.
