I reiterate the above. Though you disagree, I still think it is futile for us to attempt to argue the finer points unless/until we have the pertinent FACTS.
I agree with you that if a contract did in fact exist btw Amber and this photographer, it probably need not have been a written one. I agree with you that public reaction to this business of Amber posting nude may affect her credibility to an extent.
As to who has the right to make money off these pics, we're just going to have to wait till we can at least see the complaint b/f we know the issues here. We know that there exist pictures of Amber posting naked, but we do not really know what happened btw her and this photographer. None of us were there, and no one who was there has been interviewed, nor does any record of their conversation exist, apparently. For all we know, this photographer could have been another of her "clients" (a la the private detective) who said to her, hey, pose for me, maybe we can sell your pictures and YOU can make some money.
I will say that having someone sell the privilege of viewing this "intellectual property" which Amber has created was probably the object of the photo shoot in the first place. And that's what's happened: someone's selling views of the photos. But I believe that Amber only took her clothes off b/c SHE anticipated that SHE would get some of the money, if there was any money from this undertaking. IMO, the suit is mostly about her not getting paid, rather than about her being embarrassed that her nude image is being seen by strangers.
To a really lot of the public, before MPD paraded a key witness in what would turn out to be a murder trial, where the death penalty was involved, Amber's background and credibility should have been thoroughly checked by MPD. I know, a lot of others said that kind of info was irrelevant, but if she has a horrible history, something in that history will eventually surface and give defense, if nothing else, a real chance for appeal, if Scott is found guilty. IOW, her history may very well be pertinent to FACTS.
Yes, as to who has the right to make money off the pics is in dispute, but I believe Schmidt is on firm ground, and so do the lawyers/pundits. Her dispute is really with the photographer who sold her pics to a sleaze-bag like Schmidt. So, we're dealing with two real sleaze bags, and you still believe that Amber's reputation, even as a truth-teller is impeccable? She was just an hard-working, honest girl wanting to make a buck? Remember, she didn't even have a child when she was doing photo shoots. We will have to wait and see! This could get really interesting, Anse!