Only if it's an effective and accessible protection.
Note that the victims of Getty's RICO tactics here don't have standing to sue for copyright violation. Only for the possible fraud elements. This reduces the number of parties with significant legal protections tremendously.
The case has to proceed quickly and effectively. Long delays or appeals will steal the thunder.
The sting's got to be harsh. I'm liking the billion-dollar amount, as that's enough to make virtually any company sit up and take notice.
But the real problem is that low-grade penny-ante DMCA takedown, C&D, or other strong-arming, on questionable bases, are likely to remain profitable for a long time.
I think its tough to say... It's like I know it smells (real) bad, but I can't quite put my finger on what it is that stinks so much.
I guess I would say it is one thing to 'sell' public domain pictures in your database along with privately held photos - using a subscription model, Getty could say it is just creating a one stop shop and charging for that service. I am sure their lawyers thought about that long ago, when they first brought on the Public Domain photos.
But to go to the level of actually shaking people down for money when they are using a photo that is Public Domain leans toward organized crime, with copyright laws behaving as accessories to enforcement. It's like charging 'protection money' when you should naturally have freedom from harassment.
How many uncounted people have paid that shakedown fee for their Public Domain pictures, not knowing any better...
Wouldn't prosecution for fraud be enough?