Guest Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 To try and get back on point, Erickson's privately owned footage is supposed to be pretty good (well not "convince the world" good, but pretty good.) Now, it's been said that he can't release his doc. without Ketchums DNA (due to a NDA) now if he sells his footage, does the NDA go with it? Or can The Discovery channel say (if the rumors are true) as the new owners, release it whenever they want? I am not positive but I believe the nda would follow the sample, kind of like a lien on a house you might sell, if the lien was not satisfied at time of closing it would be inherited by the new title holder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 You're right Luckyfoot, I had no idea you had posted your experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 I am not positive but I believe the nda would follow the sample, kind of like a lien on a house you might sell, if the lien was not satisfied at time of closing it would be inherited by the new title holder. Depends on the terms of the NDA. They're like any other contract. There's no way of knowing without looking at the actual NDA used in this case. If there's a grey area, courts generally find in favor of the party who was not the drafter of the NDA. In this case the potential for a lopsided contract might be the case if one party sought representation, drafted the NDA, and provided it to the second party and the second party signed it without legal representation. Big companies try to do this to small companies all the time. The guys with the best lawyers usually win. The guys without lawyers almost always lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 (edited) Depends on the terms of the NDA. They're like any other contract. There's no way of knowing without looking at the actual NDA used in this case. If there's a grey area, courts generally find in favor of the party who was not the drafter of the NDA. In this case the potential for a lopsided contract might be the case if one party sought representation, drafted the NDA, and provided it to the second party and the second party signed it without legal representation. Big companies try to do this to small companies all the time. The guys with the best lawyers usually win. The guys without lawyers almost always lose. Yes,as always with all legal contracts,the devil is in the details. I'm assuming that would be one of the biggest concerns with the NDA that the bloodsu-, I mean lawyers would address. there is probably even more complication with the second NDA . With all the BS, I hope some one happens to stumble upon an expired BF and hands it to an organisation that makes the find public and all the people that are stopping the truth from happening, to make sure there pockets are filled to the brim, learn a lesson about the person in the mirror. Edited November 14, 2011 by zigoapex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 (edited) To try and get back on point, Erickson's privately owned footage is supposed to be pretty good (well not "convince the world" good, but pretty good.) Now, it's been said that he can't release his doc. without Ketchums DNA (due to a NDA) now if he sells his footage, does the NDA go with it? Or can The Discovery channel say (if the rumors are true) as the new owners, release it whenever they want? Has the Discovery Channel purchased it? They aren't under any NDAs. But it takes months to make a new program. I was ready yesterday..5 + years ago. Yes,as always with all legal contracts,the devil is in the details. I'm assuming that would be one of the biggest concerns with the NDA that the bloodsu-, I mean lawyers would address. there is probably even more complication with the second NDA . With all the BS, I hope some one happens to stumble upon an expired BF and hands it to an organisation that makes the find public and all the people that are stopping the truth from happening, to make sure there pockets are filled to the brim, learn a lesson about the person in the mirror. Well said,Sir, very well said indeed! Edited November 14, 2011 by SweetSusiq Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 Don't get too jazzed up if Discovery has purchased it. Aren't they supposedly sitting on blockbuster "Caddy" footage? What do you think Erickson's collection would be worth on the open market? Assuming a buyer has seen the films, and not blindly bidding? $1 million? $2 million? $100,000? Supposedly the pancake video alone was $20,000. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowBorn Posted November 14, 2011 Moderator Share Posted November 14, 2011 Don't get too jazzed up if Discovery has purchased it. Aren't they supposedly sitting on blockbuster "Caddy" footage? What do you think Erickson's collection would be worth on the open market? Assuming a buyer has seen the films, and not blindly bidding? $1 million? $2 million? $100,000? Supposedly the pancake video alone was $20,000. so lets say some one else is sitting on evidence that can prove these creature to be real with all the DNA and video.They decide to exploit this with out signing NDA's and all that crap.Boy won't they feel like crap since they will no longer be in the running for all that Money.But again here sits this person nwith this supreme footage and DNA to back up thier claims and it was all back up by a university.What are they going to do?Now that this party has now come forward with information. All that money that they have spent has now been worthless and the evidnce that they have will now be void is what I am figuring out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Painthorse Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 Then clearly the evidence you claim to have is in no way compelling if you already know people are going tear it to shreds before even putting it up. It doesn't matter how good a pic is, it's going to get ripped apart no matter what. Show me one pic that hasn't. "SERIOUSLY" JMO, there's nothing wrong in saying you have pics and refuse to "play show and tell", NO ONE is obligated to put out, knowing it's going to get ripped to shreds. THAT's why there aren't more pics circulating other than "behind the scenes" and I know of quite a few that are being shared;) My belief, and I'm stating that it is "only my belief" that when DNA or one of these creatures end up on a slab, there are going to be a slew of pics coming out of peoples closets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted November 14, 2011 SSR Team Share Posted November 14, 2011 (edited) Don't get too jazzed up if Discovery has purchased it. Aren't they supposedly sitting on blockbuster "Caddy" footage? What do you think Erickson's collection would be worth on the open market? Assuming a buyer has seen the films, and not blindly bidding? $1 million? $2 million? $100,000? Supposedly the pancake video alone was $20,000. Good clear Footage of a Sasquatch in action would be worth whatever someone wanted to pay for it but i'll tell you now, it would DWARF the $100 USD per second that a certain Research organization would pay for it & i've said it before & i'll say it again, i'll personally pay 10 x that per second in hard Cash if someone on this Forum wants to sell it to me after i had seen it with my own eyes and my Buddy i'd bring with me had too, on THEIR ( the Seller ) Computer/TV and i was happy with it.. Edited November 14, 2011 by BobbyO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 What a bunch of fragile flowers we seem to have. "I claim to have photographic evidence but won't post it because it might be criticized." Sasfooty isn't the least bit shy about tangling with her critics about any other particular thing, but since her alleged photo might be criticized, she shrinks from posting. How convoluted is that thought process? Methinks a better explanation is there is no such photographic evidence. JMHO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 Ya, the BFRO can't be seriously trying to lure anything credible in at $100 a second. Pgf was fifty something seconds? 5k for that in today's market. Ya right. For those sitting on footage: are you holding it because you think it is great and don't want someone to knock it? Or is it held private from the public because you don't want to be labeled a kook? Or is it the mindset of a child when they get a new toy, and refuse to share with others? I'm not being critical, I just don't understand the mindset. I think if you have the footage, good footage not a blobsquatch, it would be a double benefit. Prove they exist and sell it off or copyright it and make some moolah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasfooty Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 For those sitting on footage: are you holding it because you think it is great and don't want someone to knock it? Or is it held private from the public because you don't want to be labeled a kook? Or is it the mindset of a child when they get a new toy, and refuse to share with others? I'm not being critical, I just don't understand the mindset. I think if you have the footage, good footage not a blobsquatch, it would be a double benefit. Prove they exist and sell it off or copyright it and make some moolah. Or is it something else that you can't understand? People have a lot of reasons of their own for the things they do or don't do. I have never said it was definitive footage. It wouldn't prove anything, and I'm not single handedly keeping bigfoot research from proceeding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Luckyfoot Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 It doesn't matter how good a pic is, it's going to get ripped apart no matter what. Show me one pic that hasn't. "SERIOUSLY" JMO, there's nothing wrong in saying you have pics and refuse to "play show and tell", NO ONE is obligated to put out, knowing it's going to get ripped to shreds. THAT's why there aren't more pics circulating other than "behind the scenes" and I know of quite a few that are being shared;) My belief, and I'm stating that it is "only my belief" that when DNA or one of these creatures end up on a slab, there are going to be a slew of pics coming out of peoples closets. I was going to walk away from this thread, my point being made prior.....but I kinda don't agree. I respect the people that have blobsquatches and post them . Even if it is doubtfull looking. I don't know why there is this perceived fear of being "torn apart". We are open to criticism in pretty much anything we do. Life isn't a bed of roses y'all. Would you really lose a lot of sleep because people online didn't like your picture ? Do we need to be coddled that much? I cannot respect somebody saying they have something and providing no evidence. That is playing with folks to just to get attention. But I do agree w/ yur "belief" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 Is it maybe that you have grown to know them and in your mind you think you "own" them now? Don't have to share, they're mine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted November 14, 2011 SSR Team Share Posted November 14, 2011 Ya, the BFRO can't be seriously trying to lure anything credible in at $100 a second. Pgf was fifty something seconds? 5k for that in today's market. Ya right. Giving the fact that they were offering it for boosting a Show contracted to Animal Planet, i find that price shocking personally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts