Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bravo1-3
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.
|
SmugMug did not publish the pictures without consent. Presumably, whatever it did was at the direction and with the consent of the individuals who uploaded the photos. So I don't see any basis for an invasion of privacy claim.
As far as a claim for negligence goes, I suppose you could try it, but the agreement between smugmug and the photo uploaders may preclude such a claim. Also, there may be no desire on the plaintiffs' part to sue smugmug, or issues about its ability to pay a judgment.