Hi Nicu:
This is a great point. I may be coming at this from a very lawyerly
perspective. I hope you will forgive me.
Typically, when I am looking at a document for a entity whose position I
am supporting I try to think of ways of how that entity might get into
legal trouble. In this situation, I looked at the proposed agreement
and thought that it might be a problem for Red Hat and Fedora to expose
itself to law suits in multiple locations around the world from people
contesting the use of their photos. This would be very expensive and
time consuming for Red Hat and Fedora as they may have to hire lawyers
in Germany, U.K., Romania, United States, etc. for legal claims that
come up. My suggestion is to limit the locations that Red Hat and
Fedora would have to go to fight such law suits.
On the other hand, I see your point. This is a service that people from
around the world will be using. Having portions in an agreement that
limit photographers to bring legal issues against Red Hat or Fedora only
in the United States may make the agreement less appealing for people to
agree to. Individuals like you who want to make a positive contribution
might be less willing to sign the agreement knowing this.
Ultimately, I don't think the clauses are necessary. I think the odds
of there being a serious lawsuit about this is very small and I don't
think there are going to be multiple claims arising out of a release.
The agreement is pretty standard and straightforward.
--Mike
Nicu Buculei wrote:
Michael Naughton wrote:
Nicu:
Frankly, companies usually use clauses like this to dissuade
individuals from suing them. Effectively, by signing the document
the company and individual agree to the location of any possible
lawsuit and what type of law that is to be applied. In the United
States each state has its own law. Some states' law is more
favorable for certain positions than others. For example, many
corporations use Delaware as their state of incorporation because it
is seen as having a body of state law that is more corporation friendly.
Mike,
I fully understand that, but I am living in the EU and most likely
will never get into Delaware, so the chances of me going into Delaware
to sue Red Hat are ZERO. And why I would prefer a corporate-friendly
law in Delaware instead of a citizen-friendly law from Europe?
And I guess I can claim at any time that not being a native English
speaker (even more, not having *ever* learned English formally) I
didn;t fully understood what I signed. You know, a citizen-friendly
European law may be helpful here :p
Nicu Buculei wrote:
Michael Naughton wrote:
I'm coming into this a bit late, but I couldn't help but wonder if
there was any discussion with Red Hat legal concerning inserting a
choice of law and choice of forum clause in the Model and
Contribution release. By adding these clauses, the signee would
agree to litigate the issue by the specified law (New York,
Delaware, etc.) and location (presumably most easily accessible for
Red Hat/Fedora legal department). I would be happy to whip
something together and pass it along. (Disclosure: I am an
attorney licensed to practice in Michigan).
I am a potential photographer living in the Europe, the people
posing for me will be most likely from the EU, what do we should
care about states in the USA?
--
Fedora-marketing-list mailing list
Fedora-marketing-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-marketing-list
