Here's another idea on what it could all be about -
From my reading of this what is being suggested is that should you use a Getty image then advertising related to that image will appear alongside it. The example he gives is if an image of a Volkswagen is embedded within a site or blog then advertising related to VW parts may appear next to it. Getty are just trying to develop new methods of monetising their stock. It's all rather creepy in a way because Getty will now garner a lot of info about who is viewing their images, maybe to such an extent that it becomes rather anti social to use them betray your viewers to the company without their knowledge. Well, it would be nice to think so.
It used to be rather different, probably because stock was originally run by photographers or ex-photographers.
Tony Stone, whose library I was invited to join, was an ex-snapper who found marketing a better bet; The Image Bank was started by photographers, I think Art Kane was one of the founding fathers and FPG was much the same, hosting great image makers. Their catalogues were an inspiration. J.Allan Cash was a very early British stock pioneer. These guys were living the life and had business brains too, an unusual combination. Stone offered 50% deals. For a while he also ran personal photographer representation, as my old Index card sometimes ironically reminds me.
Stone sold to Getty for a reputed 30,000,000 quid. That was a lot of money in the day, still is!
With big money comes a different set of ethics. It's unavoidable. You can't get one without the other. We have to move on, even on to retirement, sometimes, when the music fades. Sometimes the music hasn't faded: we just got deaf. Who can judge?