Legal Proceedings and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2025
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Legal Proceedings and Contingencies	Note 12 - Legal Proceedings and Contingencies The Company previously issued 20,700,000 public warrants, which were governed by a Warrant Agreement, dated August 4, 2020 (the “Warrant Agreement”) and redeemed by the Company in October 2022. In late 2022 and early 2023, the Company was named as a defendant in two lawsuits filed by former public warrant holders in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, related to the Warrant Agreement: Alta Partners, LLC v. Getty Images Holdings, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-08916 (filed October 19, 2022), and CRCM Institutional Master Fund (BVI) LTD, et al. v. Getty Images Holdings, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-01074 (filed February 8, 2023) (together, the “Initial Warrant Litigation”). Alta Partners, LLC (“Alta”) and the CRCM Institutional Master Fund (BVI), LTD parties (“CRCM” and together with Alta, the “Plaintiffs”) generally alleged that the Company had breached the Warrant Agreement by purportedly refusing to permit warrant holders to exercise the public warrants beginning thirty days after the July 2022 business combination pursuant to which the Company became a public company closed and issue shares of the Company’s common stock in respect of the warrant exercises on the basis of the Company’s Form S-4 registration statement that had been filed and declared effective by the SEC in connection with the business combination, and alternative claims for violations of federal securities laws, including claims under the Securities Act of 1933 and/or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Plaintiffs sought, among other things, an award of money damages measured by the difference between the market price of the Company’s common stock on the purported exercise date less the $11.50 exercise price of the warrant multiplied by the number of public warrants each Plaintiff purported to exercise, or would have sought to exercise, on the exercise date. On February 17, 2023, the Court consolidated the actions for purposes of discovery. The Company filed answers to the complaints, and discovery closed on August 28, 2023. On September 11, 2023, all parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. On October 27, 2023, the Court issued its decision on the cross-motions for summary judgment and entered judgment in favor of Plaintiffs on their breach of contract claims and, in accordance with Plaintiffs’ calculations, awarded damages in the amount of $36.9 million for Alta with respect to 2,066,371 public warrants that it owned as of the purported exercise date and $51.0 million for CRCM with respect to 3,010,764 public warrants that they owned as of the purported exercise date, plus, in each case, pre-judgment interest of 9% per annum. The Court entered judgment in favor of the Company on all other claims asserted by Plaintiffs including a similar breach of contract claim by Alta with respect to 11,593,149 public warrants that Alta had purchased in the open market after the date on which it had purported to exercise warrants and before the warrants were redeemed by the Company, and for which Alta sought the same per warrant money damages. The Company has appealed the portion of the Court’s judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and intends to continue to defend itself vigorously. Alta has cross-appealed the portion of the Court’s judgment in favor of the Company with respect to the later-acquired public warrants. The appeals have been fully briefed and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit heard oral argument on January 22, 2025, and the appeal is sub judice. In 2023, the Company recorded a loss on litigation relating to this matter based on the criteria under ASC 450 - Contingencies (“ASC 450”). The Company has been named as a defendant in fourteen additional lawsuits by purported former public warrant holders alleging to have owned approximately 4.2 million public warrants in the aggregate (collectively, the “Follow-On Warrant Litigation”). Two of these additional suits were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Daniel Berner v. Getty Images Holdings, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-04483-JSR (filed June 11, 2024), and James Lapp v. Getty Images Holdings, Inc., Case No. 1: 24-cv-05129-JSR (filed July 5, 2024) (the “Berner/Lapp Actions”) and were pending before the same Judge that decided the Initial Warrant Litigation. These complaints generally allege breaches of the Warrant Agreement, and Berner has plead an alternative claim for violation of federal securities laws. The Court entered an order dismissing Berner’s alternative claims for violation of federal securities laws, and the Company filed answers to the complaints with respect to plaintiffs’ contract claims. The Plaintiffs in the Berner/Lapp Actions have argued that these matters are substantially similar to the Initial Warrant Litigation, and that the decision (including the method for calculating damages, which the Company disputes) reached in the Initial Warrant Litigation should be binding on the Company in the Berner/Lapp Actions. The federal court has consolidated the Berner/Lapp Actions for all pretrial purposes and entered a schedule, which included a hearing on anticipated motions for summary judgment on December 20, 2024, and a trial in January 2025. Following the summary judgement hearing, on January 27, 2025, the Court issued a bottom-line order in the Berner/ Lapp Actions granting summary judgement to plaintiffs Berner and Lapp reciting that “[a]n Opinion explaining the reasons for this ruling will issue in due course, at which time judgment will be entered.” The Judge issued its Opinion on August 7, 2025, confirming its bottom-line order, granting summary judgment to the plaintiffs Berner and Lapp and calculating damages, including pre-judgment interest at $7.8 million. The Company has appealed the Opinion and judgment. Based on the criteria under ASC 450, the Company has included this amount in the total litigation reserve. The other twelve additional suits since the Initial Warrant Litigation have been filed in the New York State Supreme Court, New York County: CSS, LLC v. Getty Images Holdings, Inc., Index No. 653527/2024 (filed July 12, 2024); Walleye Manager Opportunities LLC et. al. v. Getty Images Holdings, Inc., Index No. 653528/2024 (filed July 12, 2024); Funicular Funds LP v. Getty Images Holdings, Inc., Index No. 653410/2024 (filed July 5, 2024); MPF Broadway Convexity Fund I, LP et. al. v. Getty Images Holdings, Inc., Index No. 653411/2024 (filed July 5, 2024), LMR Multi-Strategy Master Fund Limited et al. v. Getty Images Holdings, Inc., Index No. 654963/2024 (filed September 20, 2024); Jordan Flannery v. Getty Images Holdings, Inc., Index No. 654961/2024 (filed September 20, 2024); Bi-Directional Disequilibrium Fund, L.P. et al. v. Getty Images Holdings, Inc., Index No. 654960/2024 (filed September 20, 2024); Holland v. Getty Images Holdings, Inc., Index No. 655746/2024 (filed October 29, 2024); Hunsicker v. Getty Images Holdings, Inc., Index. No. 655911/2024 (filed November 7, 2024); Dasher, et al. v. Getty Images Holdings, Inc., Index No. 655913/2024 (filed November 7, 2024); Parker v. Getty Images Holdings, Inc., Index No. 659240/2024 (filed November 22, 2024); Highbridge Tactical Credit Master Fund L.P et. al. v. Getty Images Holdings, Inc., Index No. 650402/2025 (filed January 21, 2025) (the “NY State Actions”). The NY State Actions generally allege breaches of the Warrant Agreement and seek an award of money damages, and the plaintiffs in these actions could seek, and the courts could award, money damages per warrant that are less than, equal to or greater than the per warrant money damages awarded in the Initial Warrant Litigation. The Company filed answers to each of the complaints in response to NY State Actions on April 11, 2025. During a status conference on May 8, 2025, the Court ordered the claimants to file an amended complaint, consolidating all of the claimants. The amended complaint was filed on June 6, 2025 and the Company answered on June 26, 2025. The parties are now actively engaged in discovery and expect to have their next status conference with the court on August 28, 2025. It is possible that additional purported former warrant holders of the Company could bring additional lawsuits against the Company, its directors or officers, alleging substantially similar claims, or new or different claims relating to the public warrants. The Company intends to defend itself vigorously in the Initial Warrant Litigation, the Follow-on Warrant Litigation and any future actions and is unable to estimate any potential additional loss or range of loss that may result from the ultimate resolution of these matters, which could be material to the Company’s business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. As of June 30, 2025, we had a remaining insurance recovery receivable related thereto of approximately $37.6 million, with related litigation reserves of $114.0 million. Getty Images (US), Inc. is a plaintiff in a lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against Stability AI, Inc., Stability AI, Ltd. and Stability AI US Services Corp. The case, Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Stability AI, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-00135-JHL, arises out of the defendant’s alleged unauthorized reproduction of approximately 12.0 million in images from Getty Images’ websites, along with the accompanying captions and associated metadata, and use of the copied content in connection with various iterations of Stability AI’s generative artificial intelligence model known as Stable Diffusion. Getty Images (US), Inc. has asserted claims for copyright infringement; falsification of copyright management information; trademark infringement; unfair competition; trademark dilution; and deceptive trade practices. Getty Images (US), Inc. seeks, among other things, monetary damages and injunctive relief. The case was originally filed on February 3, 2023 against Stability AI, Inc., and an Amended Complaint adding Stability AI, Ltd. as a defendant was filed on March 29, 2023. On May 2, 2023, the defendants moved to dismiss or, in the alternative, to transfer the case to the Northern District of California. The defendants’ motion was premised on their contention that Stability AI, Ltd. is not subject to personal jurisdiction in Delaware. Getty Images served jurisdictional discovery requests on Defendants on May 12, 2023, and the parties agreed to extend Getty Images (US), Inc.’s time to respond to the motion to dismiss while the parties engage in discovery relating to the defendants’ activities within Delaware and other states in the U.S. On January 26, 2024, the court dismissed the defendants’ motion to dismiss without prejudice with leave to re-file upon the completion of jurisdictional discovery. Following substantial completion of jurisdictional discovery, Getty Images (US), Inc. filed an unopposed motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint, which was granted on July 8, 2024. The Second Amended Complaint added Stability AI US Services Corporation as a third defendant. On July 29, 2024, the defendants filed a renewed motion to dismiss premised on their contention that Stability AI, Ltd. is not subject to personal jurisdiction in Delaware and also filed a motion to transfer the case to the Northern District of California. The motion has been fully briefed and is still pending a decision by the Court. No case schedule has been set. Arising out of similar alleged facts, Getty Images (US), Inc., Getty Images International U.C., Getty Images (UK) Limited, Getty Images Devco UK Limited and iStockphoto LP are Claimants in proceedings issued in the High Court of England & Wales against Stability AI Limited on January 16, 2023, claim number IL2023-000007, which, together with the Particulars of Claim (the Claimants’ statement of case) were served on the defendant on May 12, 2023. The Claimants assert claims for copyright infringement, infringement of database rights, trademark infringement and passing off seeks, amongst other things, monetary damages, injunctive relief and legal costs. The matter went to trial in the High Court in June 2025. During the trial, the Claimants made a strategic decision to drop the claims relating to primary copyright infringement linked to the training and output of Stability AI’s model and database rights infringement and focus on the claims related to trademark infringement, passing off and secondary infringement of copyright , for which a ruling is expected not later than October 2025. The Company has made certain litigation reserves in respect of the Initial and Follow-On Warrant Litigation. Although the Company cannot be certain of the outcome of any litigation or the disposition of any claims, or the amount of damages and exposure, if any, that the Company could incur, the Company does not currently believe that a material loss arising from the final disposition of existing matters is probable. Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation and regulatory proceedings, we cannot determine with certainty the ultimate outcome of any such litigation or proceedings. If the final resolution of any such litigation or proceedings is unfavorable, our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows could be materially affected. Further, in the ordinary course of business, the Company is also subject to periodic threats of lawsuits, investigations and claims. Regardless of the outcome, litigation can have an adverse impact on the Company because of defense and settlement costs, diversion of management resources and other factors. In the ordinary course of business, the Company enters into certain types of agreements that contingently require the Company to indemnify counterparties against third-party claims. The nature and terms of these indemnifications vary from contract to contract, and generally a maximum obligation is not stated. Because management does not believe a material liability arising out of such ordinary course contingent indemnification arrangements is probable, no related liabilities were recorded at June 30, 2025 and December 31, 2024. The Company has open tax audits in various jurisdictions and some of these jurisdictions require taxpayers to pay assessed taxes in advance or at the time of appealing such assessments. One such jurisdiction is Canada, where one of the Company’s subsidiaries, iStockphoto ULC, received tax assessments from the Canada Revenue Agency (“CRA”) asserting additional tax is due. The position taken by the CRA is related to the transactions between iStockphoto ULC and other affiliates within the Getty Images group for the 2015 Canadian income tax return filed. The Company believes the CRA position lacks merit and is vigorously contesting these assessments through the appeal process, including engaging with the U.S. Competent Authority. As part of the appeal process in Canada, the Company may be required to pay a portion of the assessment amount, which the Company estimates could be up to $19.1 million. Such required payment is not an admission that the Company believes it is subject to such taxes. The Company believes it is more likely than not it will prevail on appeal, however, if the CRA were to be successful in the appeal process, the Company estimates the maximum potential outcome could be up to $27.7 million.

The Company previously issued 20,700,000 public warrants, which were governed by a Warrant Agreement, dated August 4, 2020 (the “Warrant Agreement”) and redeemed by the Company in October 2022. In late 2022 and early 2023, the Company was named as a defendant in two lawsuits filed by former public warrant holders in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, related to the Warrant Agreement: Alta Partners, LLC v. Getty Images Holdings, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-08916 (filed October 19, 2022), and CRCM Institutional Master Fund (BVI) LTD, et al. v. Getty Images Holdings, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-01074 (filed February 8, 2023) (together, the “Initial Warrant Litigation”). Alta Partners, LLC (“Alta”) and the CRCM Institutional Master Fund (BVI), LTD parties (“CRCM” and together with Alta, the “Plaintiffs”) generally alleged that the Company had breached the Warrant Agreement by

purportedly refusing to permit warrant holders to exercise the public warrants beginning thirty days after the July 2022 business combination pursuant to which the Company became a public company closed and issue shares of the Company’s common stock in respect of the warrant exercises on the basis of the Company’s Form S-4 registration statement that had been filed and declared effective by the SEC in connection with the business combination, and alternative claims for violations of federal securities laws, including claims under the Securities Act of 1933 and/or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Plaintiffs sought, among other things, an award of money damages measured by the difference between the market price of the Company’s common stock on the purported exercise date less the $11.50 exercise price of the warrant multiplied by the number of public warrants each Plaintiff purported to exercise, or would have sought to exercise, on the exercise date. On February 17, 2023, the Court consolidated the actions for purposes of discovery. The Company filed answers to the complaints, and discovery closed on August 28, 2023. On September 11, 2023, all parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. On October 27, 2023, the Court issued its decision on the cross-motions for summary judgment and entered judgment in favor of Plaintiffs on their breach of contract claims and, in accordance with Plaintiffs’ calculations, awarded damages in the amount of $36.9 million for Alta with respect to 2,066,371 public warrants that it owned as of the purported exercise date and $51.0 million for CRCM with respect to 3,010,764 public warrants that they owned as of the purported exercise date, plus, in each case, pre-judgment interest of 9% per annum. The Court entered judgment in favor of the Company on all other claims asserted by Plaintiffs including a similar breach of contract claim by Alta with respect to 11,593,149 public warrants that Alta had purchased in the open market after the date on which it had purported to exercise warrants and before the warrants were redeemed by the Company, and for which Alta sought the same per warrant money damages. The Company has appealed the portion of the Court’s judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and intends to continue to defend itself vigorously. Alta has cross-appealed the portion of the Court’s judgment in favor of the Company with respect to the later-acquired public warrants. The appeals have been fully briefed and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit heard oral argument on January 22, 2025, and the appeal is sub judice. In 2023, the Company recorded a loss on litigation relating to this matter based on the criteria under ASC 450 - Contingencies (“ASC 450”).

The Company has been named as a defendant in fourteen additional lawsuits by purported former public warrant holders alleging to have owned approximately 4.2 million public warrants in the aggregate (collectively, the “Follow-On Warrant Litigation”). Two of these additional suits were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Daniel Berner v. Getty Images Holdings, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-04483-JSR (filed June 11, 2024), and James Lapp v. Getty Images Holdings, Inc., Case No. 1: 24-cv-05129-JSR (filed July 5, 2024) (the “Berner/Lapp Actions”) and were pending before the same Judge that decided the Initial Warrant Litigation. These complaints generally allege breaches of the Warrant Agreement, and Berner has plead an alternative claim for violation of federal securities laws. The Court entered an order dismissing Berner’s alternative claims for violation of federal securities laws, and the Company filed answers to the complaints with respect to plaintiffs’ contract claims. The Plaintiffs in the Berner/Lapp Actions have argued that these matters are substantially similar to the Initial Warrant Litigation, and that the decision (including the method for calculating damages, which the Company disputes) reached in the Initial Warrant Litigation should be binding on the Company in the Berner/Lapp Actions. The federal court has consolidated the Berner/Lapp Actions for all pretrial purposes and entered a schedule, which included a hearing on anticipated motions for summary judgment on December 20, 2024, and a trial in January 2025. Following the summary judgement hearing, on January 27, 2025, the Court issued a bottom-line order in the Berner/ Lapp Actions granting summary judgement to plaintiffs Berner and Lapp reciting that “[a]n Opinion explaining the reasons for this ruling will issue in due course, at which time judgment will be entered.” The Judge issued its Opinion on August 7, 2025, confirming its bottom-line order, granting summary judgment to the plaintiffs Berner and Lapp and calculating damages, including pre-judgment interest at $7.8 million. The Company has appealed the Opinion and judgment. Based on the criteria under ASC 450, the Company has included this amount in the total litigation reserve.

The other twelve additional suits since the Initial Warrant Litigation have been filed in the New York State Supreme Court, New York County: CSS, LLC v. Getty Images Holdings, Inc., Index No. 653527/2024 (filed July 12, 2024); Walleye Manager Opportunities LLC et. al. v. Getty Images Holdings, Inc., Index No. 653528/2024 (filed July 12, 2024); Funicular Funds LP v. Getty Images Holdings, Inc., Index No. 653410/2024 (filed July 5, 2024); MPF Broadway Convexity Fund I, LP et. al. v. Getty Images Holdings, Inc., Index No. 653411/2024 (filed July 5, 2024), LMR Multi-Strategy Master Fund Limited et al. v. Getty Images Holdings, Inc., Index No. 654963/2024 (filed September 20, 2024); Jordan Flannery v. Getty Images Holdings, Inc., Index No. 654961/2024 (filed September 20, 2024); Bi-Directional Disequilibrium Fund, L.P. et al. v. Getty Images Holdings, Inc., Index No. 654960/2024 (filed September 20, 2024); Holland v. Getty Images Holdings, Inc., Index No. 655746/2024 (filed October 29, 2024); Hunsicker v. Getty Images Holdings, Inc., Index. No. 655911/2024 (filed November 7, 2024); Dasher, et al. v. Getty Images Holdings, Inc., Index No. 655913/2024 (filed November 7, 2024); Parker v. Getty Images Holdings, Inc., Index No. 659240/2024 (filed November 22, 2024); Highbridge Tactical Credit Master Fund L.P et. al. v. Getty Images Holdings, Inc., Index No. 650402/2025 (filed January 21, 2025) (the “NY State Actions”). The NY State Actions generally allege breaches of the Warrant Agreement and seek an award of money damages, and the plaintiffs in these actions could seek, and the courts could award, money damages per warrant that are less than, equal to or greater than the per warrant money damages awarded in the Initial Warrant Litigation. The Company filed answers to each of the complaints in response to NY State Actions on

April 11, 2025. During a status conference on May 8, 2025, the Court ordered the claimants to file an amended complaint, consolidating all of the claimants. The amended complaint was filed on June 6, 2025 and the Company answered on June 26, 2025. The parties are now actively engaged in discovery and expect to have their next status conference with the court on August 28, 2025. It is possible that additional purported former warrant holders of the Company could bring additional lawsuits against the Company, its directors or officers, alleging substantially similar claims, or new or different claims relating to the public warrants. The Company intends to defend itself vigorously in the Initial Warrant Litigation, the Follow-on Warrant Litigation and any future actions and is unable to estimate any potential additional loss or range of loss that may result from the ultimate resolution of these matters, which could be material to the Company’s business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. As of June 30, 2025, we had a remaining insurance recovery receivable related thereto of approximately $37.6 million, with related litigation reserves of $114.0 million.

Getty Images (US), Inc. is a plaintiff in a lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against Stability AI, Inc., Stability AI, Ltd. and Stability AI US Services Corp. The case, Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Stability AI, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-00135-JHL, arises out of the defendant’s alleged unauthorized reproduction of approximately 12.0 million in images from Getty Images’ websites, along with the accompanying captions and associated metadata, and use of the copied content in connection with various iterations of Stability AI’s generative artificial intelligence model known as Stable Diffusion. Getty Images (US), Inc. has asserted claims for copyright infringement; falsification of copyright management information; trademark infringement; unfair competition; trademark dilution; and deceptive trade practices. Getty Images (US), Inc. seeks, among other things, monetary damages and injunctive relief. The case was originally filed on February 3, 2023 against Stability AI, Inc., and an Amended Complaint adding Stability AI, Ltd. as a defendant was filed on March 29, 2023. On May 2, 2023, the defendants moved to dismiss or, in the alternative, to transfer the case to the Northern District of California. The defendants’ motion was premised on their contention that Stability AI, Ltd. is not subject to personal jurisdiction in Delaware. Getty Images served jurisdictional discovery requests on Defendants on May 12, 2023, and the parties agreed to extend Getty Images (US), Inc.’s time to respond to the motion to dismiss while the parties engage in discovery relating to the defendants’ activities within Delaware and other states in the U.S. On January 26, 2024, the court dismissed the defendants’ motion to dismiss without prejudice with leave to re-file upon the completion of jurisdictional discovery. Following substantial completion of jurisdictional discovery, Getty Images (US), Inc. filed an unopposed motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint, which was granted on July 8, 2024. The Second Amended Complaint added Stability AI US Services Corporation as a third defendant. On July 29, 2024, the defendants filed a renewed motion to dismiss premised on their contention that Stability AI, Ltd. is not subject to personal jurisdiction in Delaware and also filed a motion to transfer the case to the Northern District of California. The motion has been fully briefed and is still pending a decision by the Court. No case schedule has been set.

Arising out of similar alleged facts, Getty Images (US), Inc., Getty Images International U.C., Getty Images (UK) Limited, Getty Images Devco UK Limited and iStockphoto LP are Claimants in proceedings issued in the High Court of England & Wales against Stability AI Limited on January 16, 2023, claim number IL2023-000007, which, together with the Particulars of Claim (the Claimants’ statement of case) were served on the defendant on May 12, 2023. The Claimants assert claims for copyright infringement, infringement of database rights, trademark infringement and passing off seeks, amongst other things, monetary damages, injunctive relief and legal costs.

The Company has made certain litigation reserves in respect of the Initial and Follow-On Warrant Litigation. Although the Company cannot be certain of the outcome of any litigation or the disposition of any claims, or the amount of damages and exposure, if any, that the Company could incur, the Company does not currently believe that a material loss arising from the final disposition of existing matters is probable. Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation and regulatory proceedings, we cannot determine with certainty the ultimate outcome of any such litigation or proceedings. If the final resolution of any such litigation or proceedings is unfavorable, our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows could be materially affected. Further, in the ordinary course of business, the Company is also subject to periodic threats of lawsuits, investigations and claims. Regardless of the outcome, litigation can have an adverse impact on the Company because of defense and settlement costs, diversion of management resources and other factors.

The Company has open tax audits in various jurisdictions and some of these jurisdictions require taxpayers to pay assessed taxes in advance or at the time of appealing such assessments. One such jurisdiction is Canada, where one of the Company’s subsidiaries, iStockphoto ULC, received tax assessments from the Canada Revenue Agency (“CRA”) asserting additional tax is due. The position taken by the CRA is related to the transactions between iStockphoto ULC and other affiliates within the Getty Images group for the 2015 Canadian income tax return filed. The Company believes the CRA position lacks merit and is vigorously contesting these assessments through the appeal process, including engaging with the U.S. Competent Authority.