If you're on Win 10 and you care
Those two are mutually exclusive. If you care about your privacy, you aren't on Windows 10.
So let me get this straight, she licenses the photos for free public use, then a company (rightly) uses those images but (wrongly) "sells" them to people despite not having the right to do so and its OK?
That part is actually OK. It's legal to take something in the public domain and sell it, if you can find someone willing to buy it. I could put NASA's Astronomy Pictures of the Day up at AstronomyPorn.com and charge people $20/month to access it. I probably wouldn't get many takers, but it's legal. Since they're created by the federal government, (most of) those images are public domain, and I can do whatever the heck I want with them, including selling them.
What isn't legal is to demand payment from someone for something in the public domain. I can't send threatening letters to every other website that posts the Astronomy Pictures of the Day, because they aren't doing anything wrong, I don't hold copyright to the images, and they aren't required to license anything from me. That's where Getty was in the wrong; they have no more rights to the images than anyone else, they definitely have no right to make licensing demands, and they misrepresented themselves in both ways.
It's a shame they got away with it without even a slap on the wrist, but I can't say I'm surprised. Corporatocracy is only going to get worse for the next 4 years.
Real programmers don't write in BASIC. Actually, no programmers write in BASIC after reaching puberty.