Getty Images are asking for $1000 per image for violation of copyright even if...

[Cyclone 10]

So why do you reckon sending someone a bill for your services is unlawful?

I said sending in Bailiffs was not a good idea BTW

 

Sorry, didn't mean to say that, my fingers got carried away.

 

I think I meant that sending the invoice was Not unlawful.

[troyhark 10]

Yep, seems pretty clear then that in the uk if you send in men to take goods without first having warned off and then taken court action, you are conspiring to commit theft, and the men are committing it.

Nobody is suggesting doing that though, I believe.

[troyhark 10]

Sorry, didn't mean to say that, my fingers got carried away.

 

I think I meant that sending the invoice was Not unlawful.

If you didn't post several thousand times a day on various forums you wouldn't make mistakes like that!

[Cyclone 10]

Nobody is suggesting doing that though, I believe.

 

from the original discription, that seems to be exactly what Getty are doing, unless I misunderstood it completely.

[troyhark 10]

Yup you misunderstood.

Getty will invoice, then take you to court, if not paid. And then the bailiffs may come to visit if you don't pay the court order.

Somehow, sending the thugs to nab your toaster and expresso machine, rather than going the legal route which favours Getty anyway, isn't that likely or good business.

[Nazo 10]

Yup you misunderstood.

Getty will invoice, then take you to court, if not paid. And then the bailiffs may come to visit if you don't pay the court order.

Somehow, sending the thugs to nab your toaster and expresso machine, rather than going the legal route which favours Getty anyway, isn't that likely or good business.

If you reread some of the articles, debts have been passed to collection agencies WITHOUT any kind of court order first.

[troyhark 10]

If you reread some of the articles, debts have been passed to collection agencies WITHOUT any kind of court order first.

A collection agency to recover bad debts not the same as bailiffs. Lot of firms do similar.

It's called factoring and is legitimate busines practice.

[Cyclone 10]

What Getty Images are doing is issuing people invoices without first giving them notice to remove the copyrighted material from their site. No matter what you do to rectify the problem, you have to pay their extorted fee.

 

Refusal means that they then pass the recovery of money onto a company who then turn up on your door step in an attempt to recover the money and all this is done without going through the proper channels, i.e. the courts.

 

Quite difficult to misunderstand this. It clearly says that if you refuse to pay they pass the debt to a collection agency, not go to court.

[John 11]

Quite difficult to misunderstand this. It clearly says that if you refuse to pay they pass the debt to a collection agency, not go to court.

 

You are correct cyclone, if I mislead anyone then it was not intended.

 

 

I like to add...

 

Normally the first step in any removal of any illegal material to do with abuse of copyright is to issue a cease and desist order - I was not aware at the time that this can be done via a lawyer as well as the courts. Beside the point, this process is not being executed by Getty Images.

 

Getty Images seems to think (and maybe they can do this?) that they can issue invoices without both party ever agreeing to a transaction and therefore bypassing proper channels (cease and desist order) to dealing with copyright abuse.

 

Even if they can issue fines invoices, what they also doing is not listening to people who in have in good faith bought it elsewhere or got a company to develop their websites and have not realised that they have violated Getty Images copyright through no fault of theirs.

 

Another word Getty Images are acting as judge and jury of everyone who have abuse their copyright and they do all this by avoid having to go through the courts.

[troyhark 10]

Getty used to do cease and desist, but for some reason they seem to have dropped that part of the process. Stupid really as they are in the right and would easily get the money they are demanding in their new heavy handed manner, via more sensible processses.