Defendant 2
- Copied from NevoAccording to defendant 2, the plaintiff failed to prove rivalry with her. The plaintiff's attempt to attribute responsibility to the defendants "jointly and severally" should be rejected, when it is clear that defendant 2 acted on behalf of defendants 1 and 3. Moreover, the plaintiff did not present any basis for charging defendant 2 for the wrongs alleged by her, and in particular that defendants 1-3 admitted that defendant 2 acted on their behalf.
- According to the plaintiff, the agreement that defendant 2 has with defendants 1 and 3 does indeed remove liability from it, but this does not apply to a third party (paragraph 19 of the plaintiff's summaries) and therefore, defendant 2 should be held liable for the alleged wrongs and to pay compensation together with defendants 1 and 3.
- A review of the material before me and the testimony of defendant 3 shows that defendant 2 received the materials as they are and restored the site:
Q: When you started dealing with the site, you approached Sarit to build the site and design it, someone told you "We'll use this lady's picture and we have to pay them for it" or do you have to get a letter of consent for advertising?
A: No. The website builders and Sarit and the people who built the site came and told me this is the product, this is the payment. Lava built the site and after it finished building it, I assume that at that time one of the website builders put a picture of someone there, I have no idea, and then the site didn't work, at a certain point the site went to Sarit who took all the materials and restored it, and I was as if we just sent Sarit an email that it was the product...")Detail of discussion of April 16, 2024, p. 3, S. 4-11).
- In addition, as appears from the work order agreement entered into between defendant 2 and defendant 3 (Appendix 4 to the statement of defense on behalf of defendant 2), any material received from the client, i.e., defendant 3, for the purpose of copyright, etc., is under his full responsibility.
- There is no dispute that defendant 2 acted on behalf of defendants 1 and 3.
- The plaintiff did not detail or prove the personal involvement of defendant 2 in the responsibility for the publication of the photograph in a manner that justifies imposing liability on it. The plaintiff's arguments in this matter were made in vain.
- Therefore, I accept defendant 2's arguments for lack of rivalry and order the dismissal of the claim against it and the imposition of defendant 2's expenses on the plaintiff.
Liability of Defendants 1 and 3