You might be in trouble if her lawyers and ESPN get a hold of the ip addresses that watched the video or visited the link where the video was uploaded to.
No sir. First of all I would face no criminal jeopardy and what would be their cause of action civilly against someone viewing something with no intrinsic value at an upload site?
The best thing that could be done on their part is to seek an injunction to bar the site(s) from showing it.
Problem with that is finding all of these sites and making sure they pinned down the description that titled the vid she was in.
You can't hold some viewer liable as they could merely have inadvertantly or erroneously chosen the wrong vid or a vid that was titled differently from what they expected.
Even if....what would be the remedy? She's not claiming some intrinsic value to the vid for which she is owed per viewing but merely that it's an invasion of her privacy.
As awful as the invasion was, I'm not even sure it's illegal as the author of the vid didn't create a circumstance to violate her privacy. The author didn't create the peephole (which would have been a problem) but merely put a cam up to something that was in plane view. Now if the person who did this is run down, the only problem may be that she had an expectation of privacy...but that will be an enormous burden to overcome since the individual didn't violate a space but simply peered through a glass..which theorectically anyone could have walked by and done.
Maybe the effect of this will be that people will cover their peepholes now. But the victims who had to endure this invasion to get to that point may just be out of luck.
The biggest problem with your assumption is the assumption that everyone knows who Erin Andrews is and that the vid is an actual invasion and not staged before hand.
