I researched this a bit and this is a perfect defamation lawsuit.

Shutterstock's license specifically states:

https://www.shutterstock.com/license

RESTRICTIONS ON USE OF VISUAL CONTENT YOU MAY NOT:

Portray any person depicted in Visual Content (a "Model") in a way that a reasonable person would find offensive, including but not limited to depicting a Model: a) in connection with pornography, "adult videos", adult entertainment venues, escort services, dating services, or the like; b) in connection with the advertisement or promotion of tobacco products; c) in a political context, such as the promotion, advertisement or endorsement of any party, candidate, or elected official, or in connection with any political policy or viewpoint; d) as suffering from, or medicating for, a physical or mental ailment; or e) engaging in immoral or criminal activities.

Use any Visual Content in a pornographic, defamatory, or deceptive context, or in a manner that could be considered libelous, obscene, or illegal.

There's been an actual case on this:

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=a01c793c-67d9-4dd7-a8d1-7c5c51241534

Unfortunately, no one at NYSDHR read the Getty Images license agreement. The NYSDHR staff person who made the online purchase clicked through the license agreement while downloading the Nolan image but did not read the license agreement which contained the following provisions:

"2.6 Pornographic, defamatory, or otherwise unlawful use of [stock images] is strictly prohibited, whether directly or in context or juxtaposition with other material or subject matter. (emphasis added)

2.7 “If any [stock image] featuring a model or property is used in connection with a subject that would be unflattering or controversial to a reasonable person”, the stock image must be accompanied by a disclaimer indicating “that: (i) the [stock image] is being used for illustrative purposes only; and (ii) any person depicted in the [stock image] . . . , is a model."

NYSDHR Mistake Two. Several NYSDHR staff people reviewed and/or participated in preparation of the ad. Yet, none of them considered the implications of using the picture of a woman who’s not HIV positive as the focal point of an “I’m HIV-positive” advertisement.

The Outcome for NYSDHR. Those actions constituted negligence by NYSDHR. As a result of negligently labeling Nolan as HIV positive in its advertisement, NYSDHR was found liable for defamation and for violation of Nolan’s privacy rights in a summary judgment motion (Nolan v. New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 32023(U) (Court of Claims, Oct. 18, 2015). The Court of Claims left the issue of NYSDHR’s damages for a subsequent trial.