One only has to do a general google search on 'getty images extortion letter' to find literally dozens if not hundreds of results, this forum of course amongst them
The content is always pretty much the same, bulk sending of emails and letters alleging infringement and demanding payment or proof of licence on threat of court action. The business practice is well known and is reported across numerous sites.
In essence, pay us or prove licence or we will sue you. A very hostile opening, why should anyone want to converse with this firm, even if they have a licence?
The web results tell us almost exclusively that those who do try and speak to Getty get little mutual co-operation and that they are only ever after money.
My observation is through research of this site and many others which demonstrate the same tactics in the vast majority of cases. Very few reports though of cases actually being taken through the courts... Maybe because this is they cannot prove the persons does not have a licence? Clearly there is the case you took but that applies to a very specific detail (partly print publication) and should not be compared with IP infringement of an image.
I’m told by folk more technical than me that all the social media (SM) sites are set up as mere conduits, that they provide the ‘building’ but others provide what goes on inside it, the content. Because of that, the SM sites, themselves, are not liable. If there is an infringement, it would be by the poster, the content provider, who can be difficult to identify and probably not worth chasing. Also, it may be that the BBC, Daily Mail etc. have bought the rights to ‘share’ the photo and article so their appearance on SM sites is authorised. Again, the details matter.
Or maybe because it is the social media sites will not co-operate with getty by providing IP addresses of posters who have potentially infringed. Of course they could request a Court order under existing case law ( Norwich Pharmaceutical Order) to have the information provided and in the current climate it would probably be granted but that would cost many thousands of pounds and as this is about making money rather than enforcing a principle would not be worthwhile.
DCMA is certainly US legislation although the term is accepted this side of the pond in relation to copyright takedowns. More often these days FACT and other Organisations have sought and been granted high court orders where IPS's have been required to block assess to web sites which betray IP rights.
One was only granted last week in relation to video streaming sites where Virginmedia in the UK blocked access to putlocker and some other large scale media hosting sites.
And that is what we one-man-band photographers have been doing for 4 or 5 years now. As well as Picscout, there are several other reputable companies doing the searching and reporting to the copyright holders for assessment.
Hopefully by adopting a reasonable approach rather than demands and threats you are able to strike up a dialog and seek a mutual resolution to the issues.
End of the day court action is still available. If anyone thinks they have been wronged then they are entitled to have the case heard by a court.
If Getty or indeed anyone thinks there IP has been infringed then they should seek redress through the these channels..