|
I'd be interested in following this as well.
Question for the legal beagles: Under First Cause of Action, why is AP liable for this, but SmugMug is not? Were the photographs not left in the protection of SmugMug? If so, are they not liable for the breach that allowed them to be discovered in the first place?
SmugMugs TOS were violated as per the complaint, but it looks to me like SmugMug was negligent in protecting the photos in the first place. There are about a dozen ways to protect photos from being copied by people that I am aware of, and they seem to have not done that. In addition, the fact that they would allow a google photo hit. That is detectable, and is therefore preventable.
None of the above excuses AP or Hettena's unscrupulous and malicious conduct in the matter at hand. I'm just curious as to how SmugMug gets a pass on this.
__________________
"How can a pacifist, tolerant anti-violence, anti-hunting, anti Second Amendment, anti-self-defense group turn to violence against a party that is pro- all of that?" - The Reaper, 11Oct04 14:42hrs
|