6 ms·

Aren't contracts with unlimited time periods non-binding? I was under the impression that any contract that said perpetual anything could be trivially disregard

Aren't contracts with unlimited time periods non-binding? I was under the impression that any contract that said perpetual anything could be trivially disregarded. Or is that a regional thing?

penagwin 7y ago
It's almost certainly depends on the juridiction but I am curious on this. Also if any lawyers read this - If "perpetual" isn't binding, would say "The next 200 years" be binding? It's an explicit time period but effectively still "indefinite" for the lifetime of an individual.
- jermaustin1 7y ago
  IANAL, but I've definitely heard of contracts between corporations being longer than the lifetime of an individual. Like UK leasehold properties [1]. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/999-year_lease https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/999-year_lease
bhouston 7y ago
The language from their terms of service (https://faceapp.com/terms https://faceapp.com/terms) is this: > You grant FaceApp a perpetual, irrevocable, nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide, fully-paid, transferable sub-licensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, publicly perform and display your User Content and any name, username or likeness provided in connection with your User Content in all media formats and channels now known or later developed, without compensation to you. When you post or otherwise share User Content on or through our Services, you understand that your User Content and any associated information (such as your [username], location or profile photo) will be visible to the public. This is standard language that is generally enforceable. It is the license that is perpetual, not the contract.
- cmarschner 7y ago
  Not in Europe. I’m sure lawyers are excited.
  - luckylion 7y ago
    Can you elaborate? I was under the impression that you can give permanent content licenses, is there something stopping that in general, or something related to apps, or pictures?
NikolaNovak 7y ago
I am not a lawyer, but dear gawd, how would that even work? I can imagine a huge number of domains where a time limit would make interaction unfeasible. - I am buying my house for perpetuity, not leasing it for a limited period - I'm a photographer, you're a model, I want a model release that's unlimited or it's not worth my time and risk to deal with you (this is usually framed as "rights" or "license", but signed in form of a "contract", similar to what the FaceApp would likely do?)
- Rannath 7y ago
  See DinkDink's reply for what I was thinking of. You're buying a house for as long as you can afford property taxes. :P
DINKDINK 7y ago
>contracts with unlimited time periods non-binding? I've noticed in countries with Natural Rights frame works for their law that typically contracts that commit /an individual/ to work when it's not "bonded" in some way are interpreted as slavery and nullified. e.g. If I agree to get paid $100k lump-sum today to work for you for 10 years at no more compensation, and at year 2 I decide to renege on the contract, no Natural-Rights framework court is going to enforce that. But if I sell my house to you (relinquishing ownership to you for an "unlimited time period") and I try to renege on the sale, it is going to be enforced.

Aren't contracts with unlimited time periods non-binding? I was under the impression that any contract that said perpetual anything could be trivially disregarded. Or is that a regional thing?

penagwin 7y ago

It's almost certainly depends on the juridiction but I am curious on this. Also if any lawyers read this - If "perpetual" isn't binding, would say "The next 200 years" be binding? It's an explicit time period but effectively still "indefinite" for the lifetime of an individual.

jermaustin1 7y ago
IANAL, but I've definitely heard of contracts between corporations being longer than the lifetime of an individual. Like UK leasehold properties [1]. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/999-year_lease https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/999-year_lease

bhouston 7y ago

The language from their terms of service (https://faceapp.com/terms https://faceapp.com/terms) is this: > You grant FaceApp a perpetual, irrevocable, nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide, fully-paid, transferable sub-licensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, publicly perform and display your User Content and any name, username or likeness provided in connection with your User Content in all media formats and channels now known or later developed, without compensation to you. When you post or otherwise share User Content on or through our Services, you understand that your User Content and any associated information (such as your [username], location or profile photo) will be visible to the public. This is standard language that is generally enforceable. It is the license that is perpetual, not the contract.

cmarschner 7y ago
Not in Europe. I’m sure lawyers are excited.
- luckylion 7y ago
  Can you elaborate? I was under the impression that you can give permanent content licenses, is there something stopping that in general, or something related to apps, or pictures?

NikolaNovak 7y ago

I am not a lawyer, but dear gawd, how would that even work? I can imagine a huge number of domains where a time limit would make interaction unfeasible. - I am buying my house for perpetuity, not leasing it for a limited period - I'm a photographer, you're a model, I want a model release that's unlimited or it's not worth my time and risk to deal with you (this is usually framed as "rights" or "license", but signed in form of a "contract", similar to what the FaceApp would likely do?)

Rannath 7y ago
See DinkDink's reply for what I was thinking of. You're buying a house for as long as you can afford property taxes. :P

DINKDINK 7y ago

>contracts with unlimited time periods non-binding? I've noticed in countries with Natural Rights frame works for their law that typically contracts that commit /an individual/ to work when it's not "bonded" in some way are interpreted as slavery and nullified. e.g. If I agree to get paid $100k lump-sum today to work for you for 10 years at no more compensation, and at year 2 I decide to renege on the contract, no Natural-Rights framework court is going to enforce that. But if I sell my house to you (relinquishing ownership to you for an "unlimited time period") and I try to renege on the sale, it is going to be enforced.