I was forwarded this form to sign for a child to attend a stake youth conference. Does this seem all too encroaching? I'm concerned about the word obtain and and recordings past present and future in this document. I understand if it is for the duration of a youth conference and they don't want the kids to sue the church for recording their musical numbers, and using it for promotional purposes.

I'm reading think about any youtube channels my kids might be doing, or anything the child is doing outside of this Mormondumb world. Would they be able to claim it as the Churches intellectual property?




https://www.lds.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/create/release_to_use_image.pdf?lang=eng

I routinely reject those even for kids school stuff.

Strike out that clause and initial it.

That's what I would do. Of course, the church can always reject the application.

They (want to) think they own you.

They couldn't buy me.

They couldn't afford it!

M@t

Didn’t we already agree to that nonsense in the temple?
They want it in writing now.

...”the full right to ‘create’ and obtain ...”

What in the hell do you suppose they will “create”?

Can a TBM parent sign it, and the joint-custodial parent kibosh it?

If this doesn’t scare the TBMs, what will?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/11/2018 11:46PM by kathleen.

Do any of you know of someone who signed this, and why they thought they had to?

I had my corporate lawyer colleague in NY read it.

His first response was: "WTF, this is a church?"
Well, no, I said -- it's the mormon cult.

His opinion: don't sign any of it. Don't just strike part out and sign it, don't sign it at all. He thinks it could indeed be construed to give IRI rights to anything about your child ever created (from home videos of them as a baby, to their current diary, to any photos they post on FB for the rest of their lives) without them having to ask permission or pay you anything.

"Nobody in their right mind would sign this," he said.

(I told him I was going to post this on a message board. He asked that I remind people this is free, unsolicited legal advice, and that they should consult their own attorneys. Typical lawyer talk!)

Ponderizing on this form has strengthened my testimony...........that LDS, inc is all bullshit.

>>"Nobody in their right mind would sign this," he said.

IANAL, but if that's true, it's not valid even if you do sign it, right? Isn't that known as "unconscionable"?

Probably.
But somebody would have to sue to have it declared unconscionably invalid later on. Out of the same group who signed it in the first place. You know, the ones who didn't object to a corporation owned by the church demanding they have rights to everything you ever create or have ever created...

You could argue no one in their right mind would send their child to a cult conference.

The language is too broad. Don't sign it. It's like Scientology making you sign a contract for a billion years.
They need to limit it to only the aspects of the event but they're too lazy or too crafty to limit it to just that event and only activities that you as a parent has approved publication afterwards. And to what audience??

Send it to Mormonleaks.

Not an attorney ...

It is fairly common now when you register for a meeting that you sign a waiver saying they can use your likeness for promotion (like showing a photo that includes some of the attendees at a recent meeting as part of a report about the meeting or to promote the next meeting). However, I have never seen something so incredibly broad! They can obtain your child's images in the past? They can edit and sell your child's image?

And yet, to have your child interviewed about their sexual habits by a bishop behind a closed door...no waiver required.

No one should sign this thing. I have never seen a release this broad before. Ridiculous.

I have been a corporate and contract attorney for 30 years in California. I rarely, if ever, offer legal opinions on this Board, and never legal advice. But this deserves a comment.

I will just say that if an LDS client of mine were to ask me if it was O.K. to sign this "Release" on behalf of his child, I would emphatically say NO! There are numerous problems with it. First, in my opinion it is excessively over-reaching, going beyond any reasonable and legitimate scope of protection that may be required under the circumstances of a youth outing. On many points it is ambiguous making interpretation uncertain. Moreover, the indemnification provision is arguably unnecessary, unfair, and itself troubling.

Unfortunately, contracts and releases of this sort are often presented on a "take it or leave it" basis. You should contact a Utah attorney (non-Mormon) experienced in contract law for a more formal opinion and legal advice.