I think we should flog this subject a little more, I don't believe it is dead yet
:-)
Norm
Tom Rittenhouse wrote:
> 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 contract in place, only permission, which can be withdrawn at any time.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 also be withdrawn unilaterally, so is not a binding contract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 can be withdrawn at any time by the subject.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 .
