Go Back   Professional Soldiers ® > At Ease > General Discussions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-28-2004, 17:36   #1
BMT (RIP)
Quiet Professional
 
BMT (RIP)'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Red State
Posts: 3,774
Navy SEALS sue AP

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/ea..._id=1000742675

AL and RL whats you take on this suit??

BMT
__________________
Don't mess with old farts...age and treachery will always overcome youth and skill! Bullshit and brilliance only come with age and experience.
BMT (RIP) is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-28-2004, 17:49   #2
Roguish Lawyer
Consigliere
 
Roguish Lawyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Free Pineland (at last)
Posts: 8,845
I am surprised to see MoFo taking a case like this. They usually do really liberal stuff like death penalty appeals. San Diego is a pretty conservative place, though. Could be a rogue office. LOL

I'll do some digging and see if I can give you some good info and analysis. The story doesn't really give enough information about the lawsuit to evaluate it. But the SEALs are represented by a big, national law firm. That's good for them, as long as they're not paying the bills! LOL
Roguish Lawyer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-28-2004, 18:23   #3
Airbornelawyer
Moderator
 
Airbornelawyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,954
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roguish Lawyer
But the SEALs are represented by a big, national law firm. That's good for them, as long as they're not paying the bills! LOL
Their attorney, James W. Huston, is a retired Commander who served in Naval Aviation on active duty and as a naval intelligence officer in the Reserves.
Airbornelawyer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-28-2004, 18:38   #4
Doc T
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
question

weren't the photos taken off of an internet public site? How can you sue for what is already been shown by your family on a public domain?

doc t.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-28-2004, 19:15   #5
Roguish Lawyer
Consigliere
 
Roguish Lawyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Free Pineland (at last)
Posts: 8,845
Have not found the complaint yet, but here is the press release issued by the law firm.

http://www.mofo.com/news/pr.cfm?conc...ID=1406&Type=1
Roguish Lawyer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-28-2004, 19:20   #6
Roguish Lawyer
Consigliere
 
Roguish Lawyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Free Pineland (at last)
Posts: 8,845
It was just filed today, so it is not yet on the court's docket. I e-mailed the lawyer and asked for the complaint. If he doesn't send it, I'll get it from the court and post it for everyone.
Roguish Lawyer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-28-2004, 19:22   #7
Roguish Lawyer
Consigliere
 
Roguish Lawyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Free Pineland (at last)
Posts: 8,845
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc T
weren't the photos taken off of an internet public site? How can you sue for what is already been shown by your family on a public domain?

doc t.
Well, that is a problem, but I suspect there is a factual question about how "public" that site is, and whether the person posting photos there had a "reasonable expectation of privacy." Many of those sites require passwords, for example.

There certainly are some claims that can be alleged here, but I think they may face an uphill battle because this arguably is a matter of public interest giving rise to a First Amendment defense. The SEALs will need some good lawyering, and it looks like they've got themselves a good lawyer.
Roguish Lawyer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-28-2004, 19:52   #8
Roguish Lawyer
Consigliere
 
Roguish Lawyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Free Pineland (at last)
Posts: 8,845
OK, he replied with a polite excuse for not sending me the complaint, but he did give me the case number so I can get it more easily from the Court. I should have it soon, but I'll be out tomorrow. Will post when I return.

He did let me know that they are handling the case pro bono (free).
Roguish Lawyer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2004, 15:48   #9
Roguish Lawyer
Consigliere
 
Roguish Lawyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Free Pineland (at last)
Posts: 8,845
Here is the complaint. Thanks to Martin for hosting it.

http://www.pmfp.net/fileupload/store/sealscomplaint.pdf
Roguish Lawyer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2004, 18:11   #10
Bravo1-3
Guerrilla Chief
 
Bravo1-3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Vancouver (Not BC), Washington (Not DC)
Posts: 505
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
Bravo1-3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2004, 19:19   #11
Roguish Lawyer
Consigliere
 
Roguish Lawyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Free Pineland (at last)
Posts: 8,845
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.
Roguish Lawyer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2004, 19:27   #12
Bravo1-3
Guerrilla Chief
 
Bravo1-3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Vancouver (Not BC), Washington (Not DC)
Posts: 505
I was thinking about this, and came to about the same conclusions, but I also think that smugmug would make a better witness if they knew they were getting a pass.

Looks like a good topic to break in my new subscription to Wests on when it gets activted next week.
__________________
"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
Bravo1-3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2004, 19:47   #13
Roguish Lawyer
Consigliere
 
Roguish Lawyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Free Pineland (at last)
Posts: 8,845
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bravo1-3
Looks like a good topic to break in my new subscription to Wests on when it gets activted next week.
Use it for NDD's thread on Gitmo too. He'd like that, I'm sure.
Roguish Lawyer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2004, 22:15   #14
NousDefionsDoc
Quiet Professional
 
NousDefionsDoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: LA
Posts: 1,653
Tell Hettna How You Feel
__________________
Somewhere a True Believer is training to kill you. He is training with minimal food or water, in austere conditions, training day and night. The only thing clean on him is his weapon and he made his web gear. He doesn't worry about what workout to do - his ruck weighs what it weighs, his runs end when the enemy stops chasing him. This True Believer is not concerned about 'how hard it is;' he knows either he wins or dies. He doesn't go home at 17:00, he is home.
He knows only The Cause.

Still want to quit?
NousDefionsDoc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2005, 01:03   #15
Roguish Lawyer
Consigliere
 
Roguish Lawyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Free Pineland (at last)
Posts: 8,845
A little old, but an update nevertheless:

http://www.ap.org/pages/about/whatsnew/wn_040805.html

04/08/2005

AP seeks to dismiss lawsuit over Iraqi prisoner photos

SAN DIEGO (AP) _ The Associated Press asked a federal judge Friday to dismiss a lawsuit claiming the news agency violated copyright and privacy laws by publishing photos of Navy SEALs and Iraqi prisoners posted online by a serviceman's wife.

The AP argued that the case should be dismissed because the plaintiffs cannot demonstrate a probability of winning and that the lawsuit is an attempt to punish the news organization for "truthful, accurate and balanced" reporting.

The lawsuit was filed last month by five Navy SEALs and the wife of one of the special forces members. One of the SEALs since has dropped out.

The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified damages and want the court to bar the AP from further use of the photos and to require the news agency to protect the SEALs' identities.

Plaintiffs' attorney James W. Huston said he has not yet seen the appeal, but expected the AP would cite California's law that allows quick dismissal of lawsuits aimed at stifling free speech.

"They're going to have difficulty getting that motion granted," Huston said. "We're not saying they shouldn't write a story, only that they should obscure the faces."

The photos, which were distributed worldwide with a Dec. 3 story, appear to show the servicemen in Iraq sitting on hooded and handcuffed detainees and also what appear to be bloodied prisoners, one with a gun to his head.

The story said the Navy had launched a formal investigation into the photographs after being shown them by an AP reporter, adding that the photos did not necessarily depict any illegal activities.

The AP later reported that the Navy's preliminary findings showed most of the 15 photos transmitted by the agency were taken for legitimate intelligence-gathering purposes and showed commandos using approved procedures.

In its motion to dismiss the suit, the AP said that the photos were freely available to the public on the Internet, despite steps the wife could have taken to limit their accessibility. In addition, the news agency noted, the Navy never asked the AP not to publish them.

AP cited California's "anti-SLAPP" (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) law, intended to allow quick dismissal of meritless cases aimed at stifling free speech.

The AP also argued that the one federal claim of copyright infringement lacks merit, in part, because the agency's use of the photos for legitimate newsgathering purposes is a "fair use" allowed under federal copyright law.

The original AP story said the photographs were found on a commercial photo-sharing Web site, Smugmug.com, and were brought back from Iraq by the husband of a woman who was keeping them in a digital photo album there.

According to the suit, the woman incorrectly believed the nearly 1,800 photos she posted on the Internet site were protected from access by unauthorized users and required a password to view.

The SEALs' lawsuit contended that the AP and the story's writer, San Diego reporter Seth Hettena, violated the woman's privacy and also the copyright of the photographer by using the photos without permission.
Roguish Lawyer is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 21:54.



Copyright 2004-2026 by Professional Soldiers ®
Site Designed, Maintained, & Hosted by Hilliker Technologies