Replies

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

You seem to have a lot of facts that I don't have.

I have heard that she filled out the data sheet (asinine personal questions), but I did not hear that she signed an "agreement". (Contract.) If she did, I had not heard that it had "legally binding language" on it, but if it did, the question is, were both parties bound? Was it mutual? Was there a meeting of the minds? Did the photog give consideration in return for whatever Amber may have given (presumably, her work in posing)? IOW, was the contract valid?

If she was offered her pics, as you say, I am guessing that she wasn't offered them just as a gift, or I bet she'd have taken them.

Unless there are some facts out there for us, the public, to know, it's kind of silly for us to draw any conclusion yet as to what "rights" this Schmidt may have to publish the pictures. If there's a contract, let's see what it says. I think that's what Amber's lawyers are asking for, too, at the moment. And if the only original of this alleged "agreement" (contract) was given to Amber, then she hasn't got a problem. And if no copy of it was kept by the photographer, I find it hard to believe that this alleged contract was included in any inventory which was later sold. How would the buyer have even known it existed?

I doubt Amber and her attorneys, whatever their names are (not Allred, on this suit), are going to be too upset with the money Schmidt is making on this, b/c it looks like Amber may end up with a share of the money.

We can throw around all the fancy terms we want, but Amber may well have retained some rights here, among them at least a right to part of the proceeds from the use of her image.