For either your Google or TPB references to make any sense, you have to be asserting that the photographer was engaged in illegal (defamatory or copyright-violating) behavior by posting on his own website, and that as the party breaking the law as well as the party being wronged, he has a claim against the list that included his own posting of his own content.
It's very... odd. I can't imagine that anyone serious would argue a set of URIs for legally-published content could be legal until hit hits some critical mass (or, worse, until the wrong person downloads it) and then it becomes illegal.
It's nonsensical. If you don't want your content indexed and listed, don't publish it. If you want it seen by people by mostly ignored by well-behaved crawlers, use noindex. It is insane to just publish world-readable stuff, expect to profit from Google/etc indexing it, but being claiming harm and liability for its inclusion in a list.
It's very... odd. I can't imagine that anyone serious would argue a set of URIs for legally-published content could be legal until hit hits some critical mass (or, worse, until the wrong person downloads it) and then it becomes illegal.
It's nonsensical. If you don't want your content indexed and listed, don't publish it. If you want it seen by people by mostly ignored by well-behaved crawlers, use noindex. It is insane to just publish world-readable stuff, expect to profit from Google/etc indexing it, but being claiming harm and liability for its inclusion in a list.