Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 122151	2011-12-04 22:05:00	It's amazing what a bit of casual curiosity will uncover - an ethical dilemma for me.	tuiruru (12277)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
1247094	2011-12-05 06:43:00	Sorry, didn't read that all so this may have been mentioned, but .... did you (or the Vet) read the term and conditions of the competition? You probably gave them the rights by participating in the competition. Unless you want to take your Vet to court for use of the photo without your permission...? I thought about that Jen. We (as the dog owners) didn't sign anything - just happy to help out the Vet who has always been fantastic. Now, she may have signed something, at this stage I don't know but I'll definitely find out tomorrow. Coincidentally, there's just been a bit on Campbell live about a Maori bloke with a full face Moko who got paid $1500 for a photo shoot and unknowingly signed away the copyright to his face to one of the Getty branches (a Library). They've apparently made $60,000 from it since then of which he gets zilch!! I'm not saying we're in that class but it doe show you what can be involved. I've got the waiver form here. My computer's in the middle of a (for me) big download at the moment. When it's finished, I'll scan it and post it so you can see what's involved.	tuiruru (12277)
1247095	2011-12-05 08:09:00	Well, here's the "waiver" (dl.dropbox.com). Seems you sign away not just the photo, but any responsibility on their part. Would you do it? :illogical	tuiruru (12277)
1247096	2011-12-05 10:00:00	It could be that your idea of "good and valuable consideration" and their idea of same may lie further apart than a politicians promise on the eve of the election and his/her performance in the following weeks. Perhaps you could draft up a counter proposal slightly more favourable to you and submit it for their earnest consideration, finally settling somewhere between the two offers. As it stands, they are asking you to sell to the lowest bidder, and give them the rights to do what they like - that's not a contract, it's a demand for unconditional surrender.	R2x1 (4628)
1247097	2011-12-05 19:52:00	I'd agree with Metla and Cicero but im not a fan of animal cruelty..but $100 NZD for a photo? Knock the vet out and take their version and return the next day saying she got robbed. Makes total sense. How u c damage?	EmoCat (16620)
1247098	2011-12-05 21:00:00	It could be that your idea of "good and valuable consideration" and their idea of same may lie further apart than a politicians promise on the eve of the election and his/her performance in the following weeks. Perhaps you could draft up a counter proposal slightly more favourable to you and submit it for their earnest consideration, finally settling somewhere between the two offers. As it stands, they are asking you to sell to the lowest bidder, and give them the rights to do what they like - that's not a contract, it's a demand for unconditional surrender. Yep! The "offer" has come from one of their departments in Australia. I've got one of those cheap calling cards, so I might just give them a ring a bit later, when the time difference is right.	tuiruru (12277)
1247099	2011-12-05 22:21:00	Right! I've just spoken to "Nathan", the NZ marketing manager for the company, who is aware of the "campaign" and even new the details of the vet off the vet "off the top of his head" (he was driving in his car - hopefully with a hands free phone). However, he had not seen a copy of the release. We had a bit of a chat during which I outlined my concerns at the open-endedness of the waiver (all the advantage being theirs) and how really needed more details of the ""scope" of the campaign before I signed anything, but was certainly willing to talk about new conditions. He's taken my contact details and will phone the "Sydney office" to see what can happen next. I wait with bated breath.......	tuiruru (12277)
1247100	2011-12-06 21:57:00	Anice lady (company member) from Sydney phoned me back. I pointed out that the waiver was really open ended (to their total advantage), and didn't even contain any details about how the image was going to be used and for how long. She said that the vet had that, but explained it a bit - but there's a difference between what they say is going to happen and what the "contract" will actually allow them to do on a whim. I started to (subtly) narrow it down to money saying that an International company who "had sales of €12.6 billion; while spending 24% of net sales in our largest business segment Prescription Medicines on research and development" could possibly stump up a bit more than $100, so she countered with the fact that most of the R&D was done for human drugs and that the vetinary side of the company didn't have that much funding. (At that pont I refrained from launching into the episode where they'd steam cleaned a monkey to death in 2004, a dead Beagle in 2005 - not forgetting the coverup of the results of an Aids treatment drug trial on people in Uganda resulting in thousands of toxic reactions and at least 14 deaths.) I finally asked if there was any leeway in the amount she was offering, and she said "No". I suppose the next step is to see what's on the paperwork the vet has got - whether she's signed anything, what she thinks of the "agreement", whether there were any hooks in her taking part in the competition, and just how much she thinks the drug company wants the photos (delusions of grandeur on my part?	tuiruru (12277)
1 2