Replies

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.

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

Most of what I have is coming from what has been discussed on TV (MSNBC--Abrams report) and Fox News. From what I've heard Allred and Schmidt both discussing, and subsequent responses from lawyers/pundits, coupled with my own experience of having performed due diligence for a rather large corporation (including intellectual property), I believe that the "data sheet" included legally binding language. The agreement has been flashed on TV screens and I have glanced at the legal wording, but can't recite it to you. Nevertheless, signed agreements, (or even verbal agreements), are just as binding as "contracts". The agreement, I understand, is available at Schmidt's website for a fee.

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.

If Amber was pursing a modeling career and then decided to abandon it, Danny Ayers probably did offer her the pics for a fee; otherwise, he would be "in the hole" for his time, film, etc., so, it would not be improper to "sell" her the pics. It seems that Amber did not compensate him for his time and expense, so, legally Danny was entitled to that "intellectual property". Apparently, he sold it to Schmidt.

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.

I disagree, Anse, because Amber is a key witness in a high profile case, and questions have been raised about her credibility, although she hired Allred to shut everybody up for fear of being sued. I see that whatever went on between Amber and Danny could speak further to her credibility. JMO