Thanks for the lead. I looked into the PACER docket and pulled down the actual documents to read for myself. I would not say the defendants "settled" which implies they actual made payment to Getty Images.
What most of the defendants appeared to agree to are "consent judgments" which is not the same thing as a traditional settlement. Without knowing the details of how these events occurred, the "consent judgments" are likely for public showing and a good portion of the larger judgments are probably uncollectable. Getty Images probably knows it too. I would like to add that the most of the "consent judgments" were signed by the defendants "pro se". Most had no lawyer to represent them and were likely near broke and in over their heads. The lead defendant, Walter Kowalczuk, did have a lawyer and he might have a few bucks around but millions of dollars? I am not so sure about that.
If the defendants actually had the millions of dollars required to satisfy the consent judgment, I believe there would have been mention of some kind of settlement agreement, not a "consent judgment" which doesn't carry as much weight.
Whether the defendants settled for $4 million or $14 million, $2 million or $21 million probably makes very little practical difference if the the defendants cannot actually pay it. But there were some who had consent judgments in the $15K-$25K range. Those are able to be paid off and I found one satisfaction of judgment in the docket.
All these consent judgments make for "good" publicity for Getty Images to publicly humiliate and embarrass the defendants. Honestly, in some ways, I really can't blame Getty Images. I am no Getty Images lover but if the defendants really did resell these images on the scale as Getty Images claims, it borders on criminal behavior.
On ELI, we discuss mostly small-time unintentional infringements which fall entirely within the civil claim realm. But the defendants purported behavior really has me thinking about the criminal side of infringements.
If Getty can't collect actual restitution/reimbursements/cash settlement, the only thing Getty Images can benefit from is the public spanking and humiliation of the defendants with the consent judgments. There is also the small possibility the consent judgment will show up on their credit reports and hurt their credit. I am not sure what the credit agencies will pick up and report given the fact this is not a traditional judgment based on debt.
The defendants might be able to file Chapter 7 bankruptcy and nullify the consent judgments if it becomes a real problem. However, it will not solve the fact Getty Images has managed to taint the defendants names and give the impression that the defendants engaged in quasi-criminal behavior.
I suspect Getty Images has done some investigation into the assets and income of the individuals before they seek any collection action such as levying their bank accounts. I don't think it is worth their while to pursue it unless they just want to twist the knife deep and hard.
With this public humiliation, the defendants will probably resort to landscaping work, mowing lawns, or washing dishes for income. They can't get any job at any large company that might Google search their background.
Very interesting developments. It should be interesting to see how the remaining parts of the case is resolved.
Topic: Getty Images v. Walter Kowalczuk (Buying/selling images in private FB forums) (Read 8486 times)