This is just straight up linkbait. We're supposed to be mad because they bought a cheap graphic on iStock and don't credit the designer? Isn't that the point of buying rights to stock photos/graphics?
It seems to me that ambiguity in iStockPhoto's license <i>could</i> mean Twitter would owe many thousands of dollars for this.. hear me out :)<p>The iStockPhoto standard license has an easily ignored, and rather confusing, clause:<p><i>[You may not] either individually or in combination with others, reproduce the Content, or an element of the Content, in excess of 500,000 times without obtaining an Extended License, in which event you shall be required to pay an additional royalty fee equal to US $0.01 for each reproduction which is in excess of 500,000 reproductions. This additional royalty does not apply to advertisements in magazines, newspapers or websites or to broadcast by television, web-cast or theatrical production.</i><p>"advertisements in magazines, newspapers or websites" is ambiguous. I first read it as meaning "(advertisements) in (magazines, newspapers or websites)" and the error page on Twitter is not an advertisement. But if this were so, then wouldn't pretty much any graphic purchased from iStockPhoto end up being used over 500,000 times <i>eventually</i> on the Web? Twitter would probably owe hundreds of thousands of dollars in royalties.<p>Or is it "(advertisements in magazines), (newspapers) or (websites)" in which case, fine. Hurrah for vague legal wording! It's a shame it's so vague because it does open things up for interpretation.
The issue is relevant for stock photographers who were the audience of the RT since the price is considerably less than traditional home page logo licensing. that's all.