Go Back   Professional Soldiers ® > At Ease > General Discussions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-30-2004, 18:11   #16
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   #17
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   #18
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   #19
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, 20:10   #20
Bravo1-3
Guerrilla Chief
 
Bravo1-3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Vancouver (Not BC), Washington (Not DC)
Posts: 505
I think that any law related to that kind of thing would be pre-1984 (like 1940's era for the basis), but it might be an interesting couple of hours. I've got a student subscription that goes live on January 3rd. I'm sure it's limited as to how broad it is, but $30 for 1 year of unlimited use can't be a bad thing

But I'm sure NDD would appreciate a few paragraphs of Lawyer-Speak in his thread
__________________
"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, 22:15   #21
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   #22
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
Old 05-16-2005, 01:04   #23
Roguish Lawyer
Consigliere
 
Roguish Lawyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Free Pineland (at last)
Posts: 8,845
Turns out the lawyer writes fiction books too.

http://www.jameswhuston.com/
Roguish Lawyer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2005, 01:38   #24
Roguish Lawyer
Consigliere
 
Roguish Lawyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Free Pineland (at last)
Posts: 8,845
I pulled the docket. The motion has been fully briefed and is scheduled to be heard on May 24. I ordered some of the papers and will post something about them eventually.
Roguish Lawyer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2005, 16:41   #25
Roguish Lawyer
Consigliere
 
Roguish Lawyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Free Pineland (at last)
Posts: 8,845
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roguish Lawyer
I ordered some of the papers and will post something about them eventually.
Apparently they are not available on-line. Too expensive to send someone down to San Diego to get them, but I'll continue to track the case to the extent I can and post reports once in a while.
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 08:07.



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