Possible Strategy against Getty?

[sojomy]

I've been reading up on the Getty Letter "scam" for a while now.  I had a customer get a letter about a year ago, and after a phone call from NCS saying that they were going to ruin the customer's credit if they didn't pay, they freaked out paid $800.  I had a second customer get a letter this week, so I have been doing more research and I am wondering if this is a possible action to take after receiving a letter.

Getty sends people a letter stating that the infringing party owes Getty money because they used an image that Getty owns the rights to.  Getty doesn't accept that excuse that some people might have gotten the image from someone who said that it was free to use, or that they got it from a template that they paid for, or even that they got it directly from the author - they say that they own the exclusive rights, so you have no option but to pay.  So what if I take a photograph (and even register it with the copyright office), then I give it to someone else and they upload it to Getty's website and tell Getty that they can use and license it.  But I never gave Getty my permission to use the image.  Can I then take a screenshot if it on their website and threaten to run the same scam on them?

If they are using my image without my permission, then they are in the same position that some other people are if they had a 3rd party develop a website for them using one of Getty's images.  It's not the end-users fault because they were assured by the person that they paid for a service that the image was legal to use.  So isn't Getty in the same position?

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

In theory it sounds good..however... the image first must be accepted by GI, and the person uploading would have to sign an agreement, stating that they own the image and are handing over to GI the power to license & enforce said image.. I doubt you'd get somebody to sign a legally binding document in this way, as it would be considered fraud or worse. I'm sure buried in the fine print of the contract there is something to the effect of GI not being responsible / liable for any images that are excepted into their system in a fraudulent / underhanded manner... I'm wondering what others might think of this and if i'm correct in my thinking.. my moral compass also tells me doing something like this would just be wrong, and 2 wrongs don't make a right..

[Oscar Michelen]

well said buddhapi