Invoice/Sent to Collection questions

[gettyvictim120]

I am curious about the tactics that Getty Images is using. Surely, they are exploiting or abusing customer protection laws (except in most cases there aren't customers, but rather users). For instance the demand letter is in the form of an invoice? How can they send an invoice for something when there was never any sale? Further, how can they send someone to collection for copyright issues when there hasn't been any judgment against the "infringer"?

I have followed pro-photography forums/blogs and the Getty procedure is becoming an acceptable form of seeking redress against "infringers". I think this is a way to avoid actual litigation and having to prove actual infringement. Surely there has to be a better way?

It's as though GI has become a judge and jury unto themselves, assigning fines without proof. This has always bothered me because the US copyright law is clear about DMCA take down notices. But perhaps this is a grey area of US copyright law that needs to be more clearly defined. In any event, they aren't even giving webmasters an opportunity to take anything down before assigning fees.

Anyway, just some thoughts on the issue.

[Matthew Chan]

Getty Images is trying to be judge and jury as you say.  That is exactly why I am fighting this.  If I am to be found guilty, it will have to be done in a court of law where I can publicly defend and argue my case.

I have no false notions that most people will "roll over".  That is their perogative but it won't be mine.

Quite frankly, I have learned a lot of lessons from Getty Images, human nature, and how people different respond to accusations.