[Devil_Anse]

Perhaps so. But the sale of that man's business in no way involved Amber Frey. I still say that if a contract does not specify its terms, such as substitution of parties, then those terms do not apply to that contract. IMO, she would have had to agree to it.

So you're saying she, too, could have sold her interest in the contract? If not--why not?

[Sandylapper]

Perhaps so. But the sale of that man's business in no way involved Amber Frey. I still say that if a contract does not specify its terms, such as substitution of parties, then those terms do not apply to that contract. IMO, she would have had to agree to it.

First, Amber Frey was not under "contract". She went to the original nameless photographer to pursue a modeling career. The photographer had her answer some assanine personal questions and sign an agreement, which had some legally binding language on it, but I'm not sure exactly what the wording was. She was given the original copy of that agreement. When she decided to "forget the modeling career", she was offered her pics, but she declined and told the photographer to keep them. Later, that photographer sold his business. Without a doubt, an inventory was taken and due diligence was performed. All pics and agreements were listed and among them, was Amber's, so if there was no challenge at the time of the sale, all intellectual properties and corresponding documents (the agreement) became the property of the buyer. I believe that Schmidt has a legal right to have those pics in his possession and Amber relinquished her right to her own pics when she didn't take them. Maybe she didn't "know", but what's the old saying, "Ignorance is no excuse"? JMO