I'm still trying to get my head around all this. Getty is everywhere - even flickr has a getty agreement of sorts (though you do have to opt-in). Its a really massive change that will no doubt have implications all over the place.
The ToS linked in the "Re-embed this" seems to me that it needs an update - http://www.gettyimages.com/corporate/terms.aspx
has language like:
You are specifically prohibited from: ...
(c) manipulating or otherwise displaying the Site or the Getty Images Content by using framing or similar navigational technology;
So how is using embedding they're providing NOT violating that???
Since it's embedded, there's a lot of stuff you're giving up. I could see them deciding to change the ToS some time down the line and have a ready-made list of people to shake down for "high use". Or they could change the formatting/CSS to break your site in odd and subtle ways. Also if their hosting service has problems - your article suddenly has broken embeds. They also get data on what images are popular (how often they're viewed, how many hits from different locations, and how popular your blog is) and can adjust their pricing of assets for non-embed use accordingly - not unlike the recent 500px stock site announcement, except on a real-world basis rather that on a site frequented by photographers.
I'm boggling a bit that they didn't at least try to disable right-click download of the image. That could be tough to pull off with a bunch of different sites I guess, but it seems to be a big problem they're having.
I'm not sure that 5 new lawsuits signals anything - the number is just too small for such a huge company for me to pay much attention to.