Legal Proceedings and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2026
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Legal Proceedings and Contingencies	Note 11 - Legal Proceedings and Contingencies Warrant Litigation The Company previously issued 20,700,000 public warrants, which were governed by Warrant Agreements, dated August 4, 2020 (the “Warrant Agreement”) and redeemed by the Company in October 2022. On October 27, 2023, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Court”) issued a decision in the actions brought by Alta Partners, LLC (“Alta”) and the CRCM Institutional Master Fund (BVI), LTD (“CRCM” and together with Alta, the “Plaintiffs”) captioned: 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”) on 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 appealed the portion of the Court’s judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and Alta cross-appealed the portion of the Court’s judgment in favor of the Company with respect to the later-acquired public warrants. In an Opinion issued on January 15, 2026, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the Court’s opinion as to the Company's liability and the monetary judgment in all respects, with one judge dissenting. The Company filed a petition for rehearing of the decision by the Second Circuit on February 19, 2026. In an Order issued on April 16, 2026, the Second Circuit denied the Company’s petition for rehearing. The Company issued payment for the judgment and related interest to the Plaintiffs on April 23, 2026. See “Note 12 - Subsequent Events”. The Company has been named as a defendant in fourteen additional lawsuits by purported former public warrant holders alleging to have owned approximately 4.3 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 motions for summary judgment on December 20, 2024. Following the summary judgment hearing, on January 27, 2025, the Court issued a bottom-line order in the Berner/Lapp Actions granting summary judgment 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. 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, monetary damages per warrant that are less than, equal to or greater than the per warrant monetary 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 completed discovery and the plaintiffs filed a note of issue and certification of readiness for trial on December 5, 2025. On December 19, 2025, plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment, and on December 23, 2025, the Company moved to vacate plaintiffs’ note of issue and certificate of readiness. Briefing on both matters is complete. The court will hear oral argument on the motion for summary judgment on June 9, 2026. 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 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. The Company has recorded a loss on litigation relating collectively to the Initial Warrant Litigation, Berner/Lapp Actions and NY State Actions based on the criteria under ASC 450 - Contingencies (“ASC 450”) and as of March 31, 2026 held a related litigation reserve of $208.4 million with a remaining insurance recovery receivable related thereto of approximately $33.7 million in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet. 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, other than those in respect of which the Company has made litigation reserves as described above, is probable. Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation and regulatory proceedings, the Company 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. Stability AI Lawsuits Getty Images (US), Inc. is a plaintiff in a lawsuit filed on August 14, 2025 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against Stability AI, Inc., Stability AI, Ltd. and Stability AI US Services Corp. The case arises out of Stability AI’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. On October 14, 2025, the defendants moved to dismiss all of the claims other than the claim for copyright infringement. On April 23, 2026, the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the claim for falsification of copyright management information without prejudice and denied the motion to dismiss with the respect to the other claims. The parties are engaged in fact discovery. 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, 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, which according to Stability AI, took place outside of the United Kingdom and was thus beyond the reach of UK copyright law, and focus on the claims related to trademark infringement, passing off and secondary infringement of copyright. On November 4, 2025, the Court issued a ruling finding in favor of the Claimants only on its claims for trademark infringement. While Getty Images was unsuccessful on the secondary infringement claim, the ruling delivered a key factual finding: that, wherever the training and development did take place, Getty Images' copyright-protected works were used to train Stable Diffusion. In December 2025, the High Court held a hearing, during which the Court granted Claimants an injunction, assessed an interim costs award to Stability AI for the matters on which Claimants did not prevail or dropped at trial, granted Getty Images’ request to appeal the decision on secondary infringement and denied Stability AI’s request to appeal the trademark decision. The Claimants have filed an appeal, which Stability AI has challenged. Stability AI has sought permission from the Court of Appeal to hear an appeal on the trademark decision. The parties await that decision. The Court assessed an interim costs award to Stability AI for the matters on which Claimants did not prevail or dropped at trial of $5.8 million. This cost award was included in “Accrued expenses” in the Consolidated Balance Sheet as of December 31, 2025 and was paid during the three months ended March 31, 2026. Canada Revenue Agency Tax Assessment 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 intends to appeal and vigorously contest these assessments. 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 $19.7 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 $28.6 million.

The Company previously issued 20,700,000 public warrants, which were governed by Warrant Agreements, dated August 4, 2020 (the “Warrant Agreement”) and redeemed by the Company in October 2022. On October 27, 2023, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Court”) issued a decision in the actions brought by Alta Partners, LLC (“Alta”) and the CRCM Institutional Master Fund (BVI), LTD (“CRCM” and together with Alta, the “Plaintiffs”) captioned: 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”) on 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 appealed the portion of the Court’s judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and Alta cross-appealed the portion of the Court’s judgment in favor of the Company with respect to the later-acquired public warrants.

In an Opinion issued on January 15, 2026, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the Court’s opinion as to the Company's liability and the monetary judgment in all respects, with one judge dissenting. The Company filed a petition for rehearing of the decision by the Second Circuit on February 19, 2026. In an Order issued on April 16, 2026, the Second Circuit denied the Company’s petition for rehearing. The Company issued payment for the judgment and related interest to the Plaintiffs on April 23, 2026. See “Note 12 - Subsequent Events”.

The Company has been named as a defendant in fourteen additional lawsuits by purported former public warrant holders alleging to have owned approximately 4.3 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 motions for summary judgment on December 20, 2024. Following the summary judgment hearing, on January 27, 2025, the Court issued a bottom-line order in the Berner/Lapp Actions granting summary judgment 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.

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, monetary damages per warrant that are less than, equal to or greater than the per warrant monetary 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 completed discovery and the plaintiffs filed a note of issue and certification of readiness for trial on December 5, 2025. On December 19, 2025, plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment, and on December 23, 2025, the Company moved to vacate plaintiffs’ note of issue and certificate of readiness. Briefing on both matters is complete. The court will hear oral argument on the motion for summary judgment on June 9, 2026.

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 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.

The Company has recorded a loss on litigation relating collectively to the Initial Warrant Litigation, Berner/Lapp Actions and NY State Actions based on the criteria under ASC 450 - Contingencies (“ASC 450”) and as of March 31, 2026 held a related litigation reserve of $208.4 million with a remaining insurance recovery receivable related thereto of approximately $33.7 million in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet. 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, other than those in respect of which the Company has made litigation reserves as described above, is

probable. Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation and regulatory proceedings, the Company 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.

Getty Images (US), Inc. is a plaintiff in a lawsuit filed on August 14, 2025 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against Stability AI, Inc., Stability AI, Ltd. and Stability AI US Services Corp. The case arises out of Stability AI’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. On October 14, 2025, the defendants moved to dismiss all of the claims other than the claim for copyright infringement. On April 23, 2026, the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the claim for falsification of copyright management information without prejudice and denied the motion to dismiss with the respect to the other claims. The parties are engaged in fact discovery.

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, 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, which according to Stability AI, took place outside of the United Kingdom and was thus beyond the reach of UK copyright law, and focus on the claims related to trademark infringement, passing off and secondary infringement of copyright. On November 4, 2025, the Court issued a ruling finding in favor of the Claimants only on its claims for trademark infringement. While Getty Images was unsuccessful on the secondary infringement claim, the ruling delivered a key factual finding: that, wherever the training and development did take place, Getty Images' copyright-protected works were used to train Stable Diffusion. In December 2025, the High Court held a hearing, during which the Court granted Claimants an injunction, assessed an interim costs award to Stability AI for the matters on which Claimants did not prevail or dropped at trial, granted Getty Images’ request to appeal the decision on secondary infringement and denied Stability AI’s request to appeal the trademark decision. The Claimants have filed an appeal, which Stability AI has challenged. Stability AI has sought permission from the Court of Appeal to hear an appeal on the trademark decision. The parties await that decision.

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 intends to appeal and vigorously contest these assessments.