|embedded media hold harmless agreement||DougSloan|
Nov 6, 2003 8:39 AM
|I was looking for a form, and look what I came across; interesting it would be right there on the internet:
|now, contrast with this one:||DougSloan|
Nov 6, 2003 8:41 AM
Nov 6, 2003 8:44 AM
|I think that both are good for the intended audience . . .||HMS|
Nov 6, 2003 9:12 AM
|Drafting releases is one of those things that seems easy, but if you think about the document's holding up in court, it is not so easy. I think that both documents are good for their intended audience. The embedded journalist release is a much more explicit document and is appropriate for a sophisticated person who probably is represented by counsel. Also, the potential claims of an embedded journalist are potentially greater than those of a bird watcher. But, a simple document, such as the Audubon one, probably would be more appropriate for a layperson without counsel (i.e., it is more understandable and, thus, more likely to be enforced).
My law school contracts professor was, for the most part, one of the most worthless teachers I ever had. But, he did impart one nugget of wisdom that all of us who recycle things like form releases and contracts should keep in mind: Don't copy and reuse the language of a form unless you really know what all of the terms mean. It sounds elementary, but more than once I have asked someone what a term means that he or she has put in a document and not received a very intelligent response.
BTW: I now have a split personality on RBR. My work computer was upgraded and I cannot post with my old handle -- ms - from work (although I can still do so from home). Until I figure out how to be ms in both places (my password only works for HMS, which was my initial screen name many years ago), I will be HMS from the office and ms from home.
|Considering the fact it's a federal government document||mickey-mac|
Nov 6, 2003 8:44 AM
|I'm surprised it's only three pages long.|| |