0

Recently, McCormick announced that they are hiring for a position named Director of Taco Relations. The job description and application requirements states that you should submit a video explaining how you are a good candidate. One of the requirements for the video is as such:

Video must be your own original content, and must not include third parties, any third-party copyrights, logos, or any other content that may infringe or violate a third party’s rights.

In must not include third parties, what does third parties mean? If I submit a video with one of my friends in it, does that break the rules?

Further guidance states this:

MUST NOT include any third parties (including but not limited to minors, celebrities and friends, or any others who have not expressly authorized Applicant to display their image or likeness in the Proposal or any submitted application or otherwise use such images or likenesses in accordance with these Terms & Conditions).Applicant must be prepared to provide signed third-party authorizations upon request.

If one of my friends consents to being in the video, does that break these terms?

1

What does "third party" mean in this context?

Third party means anyone other than the applicant.

If one of my friends consents to being in the video, does that break these terms?

Yes. The language "MUST NOT include any third parties" is unequivocal and unqualified. It encompasses all third parties regardless of whether they consent to appearing in the video. The list of examples in parentheses is both non-exhaustive (because of the terms "including but not limited to") and redundant (because of "NOT include any").

The requirement to "provide signed third-party authorizations upon request" seems pointless because the prohibition is stated twice and in clear terms. If anything, the purpose might be to [further] avoid liability in the event that the third party proceeds against the company, regardless of the candidate being disqualified for his violation(s) of the terms.

6
  • alternate take- "including but not limited to minors, celebrities and friends, or any others who have not expressly authorized Applicant" can be read as "including but not limited to friends who have not expressly authorized Applicant" - in which case, as long as I have a signature, I'm good. Thoughts? Jul 15 '21 at 14:16
  • @spaghettibaguetti "as long as I have a signature, I'm good. Thoughts?" If that were the company's intent, it would have qualified the prohibition. The wording of the [repeated] prohibition is unequivocal and leaves no room for exceptions. Nor is it clear why the applicant would need to involve third parties in his application for a job position he aspires to be only for himself. Jul 15 '21 at 14:26
  • Third party means "Anyone other than the applicant, and in this case McCormick".
    – gnasher729
    Jul 15 '21 at 14:53
  • I don't understand why you say the language is unequivocal and unqualified. Modifying "third parties" with "who have not expressly authorized [blablabla]" seems like a pretty big qualification.
    – bdb484
    Jul 16 '21 at 1:00
  • And it means no videographer other than you. Who ever shots it has copyright rights. They do. It want anything in there possession that is tainted by any contribution other than yours. Jul 16 '21 at 3:22

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.