I know US copyright recognizes copyright from other jurisdictions and for non-US citizens. What I don't know is how registration in another country affects potential penalties if a case is brought in the US. Since the photographer is Irish, it's plausible he would register in Ireland, and then not register in every single country on the planet. I would imagine copyright law is (and ought to be) written to give such holders protection. Still, I don't
know if the photographer can collect statutory penalties in the US if he did not register in the US prior to the claimed violation happening. (Oddly, the photographer on the legal-issues thread might know. But he seems to live in Europe and seems to take care to file for copyright in the US. His registering in the US is sufficient to resolve any issues about penalties should he bring suit in the US: A court could award him statutory penalties. )
But with respect to your case, Getty would definitely need to figure out where to file any case. I don't know if they can file any case against you in California-- but it's plausible if your server is hosted there. If they filed there, US law would apply. Oscar could write a letter for you or represent you. I'm sure Oscar also knows whether the server being in Canada gives sufficient nexus to permit them to sue you in California courts. I just don't know.
If they file in Canada, Canadian law would apply. Oscar can't represent you or send a letter.
Ohhh... Oscar would be better than googling. But I found this: The Calder Test, which it seems, would be applied by an American court determining whether Getty could sue you someplace other than were you reside or other than where you do business.
http://faculty.ist.psu.edu/bagby/432Spring12/T15/jurisdiction.htmlOften times determining if a state has personal jurisdiction in online cases can be difficult. This is why the Calder test has become so important as a starting point. The court has to determine three things to grant personal jurisdiction. First, whether or not the act was committed intentionally. Second, if the act was directly aimed at the plaintiff in the forum state and finally, whether or not the defendant suffered damages in that state. If the court can find all three of these tests to be true, then personal jurisdiction can be granted.But I do read other interpretations that seem to organize the arguments differently. For example:
http://onellp.com/blog/knowledge-and-copyright-infringement-do-not-create-specific-jurisdiction-in-plaintiff%E2%80%99s-forum-state/I suspect that your act will not have been "directly aimed at the plaintiff in" any state of the US. If all three need to be fulfilled to get jurisdiction in a venue in the US, Getty would then have to hope to sue you in Canada. If you had any sort of attorney, I suspect Getty would have a tough time creating an argument to meet the jurisdictional hurdle for a US filing. But.. as I said: Oscar is the one who would know. It's his specialty.