It’s more than kind of odd. Getty have the photographer sign a contract before they turn over a photo to their customer. The rights flag is set to Creative Commons that says with attribution you can use it for free, even for advertising.
On that basis, perhaps we can’t fault those guys for using the photo, but it still feels slimy. Generally I don’t have a problem with stock photos in advertising, except when the product is photography! Using stock photos (even if there is fine print some place) will lead many to believe those photos were taken by the photographer and are the quality the customer can expect. I don’t believe either of the photographers using the photo for ads are capable of delivering that quality.