I'm surprised to see so many people sticking up for Fuji's lawyers. It would be good to remember that they are Fuji's lawyers, and unless their client requests otherwise, are really only supposed to be looking out for their client's interest. I'm sure it's possible to right a terms of service agreement that would protect Fuji from the actions of third parties without granting the company quite such sweeping rights. It sounds like these lawyers were told, "We want to offer this service and we want to incur no liability whatsoever as a result of doing so. Whether we trample on the rights of the people using the service (our customers) is of no concern to us." Sounds like a case of stupid arrogant business people to me, or else another instance of corporate harvesting of intellectual property. -- "Red" Alan P. Hayes Pittsfield, Massachusetts <http://www.meaningandform.com/photography> <mailto:ahayes@berkshire.rr.com>
