Getty Images Getty Images: Clever business model to go after innocent. Seattle, Washington

To save time on making a webpage template I decided years ago to use and modify a clearly designated-as-free CSS template I found on the Internet from an Asia-based source. The template came with few very small filler images which were inserted in the free layout. I modified the layout and reused 2 of those images provided in my webpage. I actually have never got any business leads or direct profit from that particular page because I just used the host to store sketch files.

Few years later I got a letter from Getty Images charging me with unauthorized use of 2 of their images demanding a pay. I immediately removed those 2 images in question from my webpage. Few months later I received a letter from their "legal representative", who apparently is a collection agency, in attempt to collect over $2,000.

It's obvious to me that a practice, the Getty Images is involved in, is fully justified if there is an intentional copyright violation of their images. However, going after people who are not aware of the image copyright violation, who do not make any profit from them and who are misinformed by a 3rd party about the applicable copyright seems to be very similar to the way some bogus computer virus protection software providers who act by indirectly, and often intentionally, planting viruses and then demand a charge for a software to remove them.

I wonder what is the related legal precedence involving similar tactics. Getty Images must know the related legal enforcement controversy so they rarely issue court proceedings, instead relying on debt collection agencies to enforce their claims. The practice is clearly not about protecting the images owners but about creating a well managed revenue stream after the situation is monetarily beneficial to them even if only a small percentage of claims is actually settled.