Strange? I thought that was exactly what I said. But, I
wouldn't build a dog house for you without a written
contract.
--Tom
Bucky wrote:
>
> Simple permission is not a contract. A contract must be supported by
> consideration (ie. money). If you paid your model for the right to use the
> image, then (s)he cannot withdraw that permission, barring a specific clause
> allowing it, or some time limitation on the use, because you then have a
> contract. If you did not provide consideration to the model, there is no
> contract in place, only permission, which can be withdrawn at any time.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Tom Rittenhouse
> Sent: April 23, 2001 11:48 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Or Best Offer: a misleading--and dishonest--phrase
>
> If there is such a thing as a unilateral contract, it can
> also be withdrawn unilaterally, so is not a binding contract
> at all. I use this concept for my model releases. The
> subject grants me permission to use their likeness. The
> permission being what you would call an unilateral contract
> can be withdrawn at any time by the subject.
>
> -
> This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
> go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
> visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
