[pure-silver] Re: Uneasy Question From Nervous Uncle
- From: Bill Stephenson <photographica@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 17:32:49 -0500
I've been thinking about exactly that since this thread gathered steam.
I wonder if Uncle Dick would have to consider that fact that his
friends, acting as models, did indeed confer some "valuable
consideration" in the form of their time and faces/bodies (or whatever
Uncle was shooting). Since a professional model would be paid cash, is
it reasonable to assume that the modeling services of *any* individual,
professional or not, have value? If so, that might tip the equation,
rock the boat, pie the type, or shake the martini. Or maybe not...
-Bill
On Saturday, January 29, 2005, at 02:03 PM, Dave Hornford wrote:
> I leave it as an exercise to determine the meaning of 'published' in
> Australian law - like 'valuable consideration' it is a legal term that
> when used as such doesn't necessarily mean what reasonable
> English-speaking adults think it means.
=============================================================================================================
To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your
account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you subscribed,)
and unsubscribe from there.
Other related posts:
