united-states legal-terms
What does &quot;third party&quot; mean in this context?
<p>Recently, McCormick announced that they are hiring for a position named <a href="https://www.mccormick.com/director-of-taco-relations" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Director of Taco Relations</a>. The <a href="https://www.mccormick.com/dir-taco-relations-job-description" rel="nofollow noreferrer">job description and application requirements</a> states that you should submit a video explaining how you are a good candidate. One of the requirements for the video is as such:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>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.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In <code>must not include third parties</code>, what does third parties mean? If I submit a video with one of my friends in it, does that break the rules?</p>
<p>Further guidance states this:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>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 &amp; Conditions).Applicant must be prepared to provide signed third-party authorizations upon request.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>If one of my friends consents to being in the video, does that break these terms?</p>

<blockquote>
<p>What does &quot;third party&quot; mean in this context?</p>
</blockquote>
<p><em>Third party</em> means anyone other than the applicant.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>If one of my friends consents to being in the video, does that break these terms?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Yes. The language &quot;<em>MUST NOT include any third parties</em>&quot; 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 &quot;<em>including but not limited to</em>&quot;) and redundant (because of &quot;<em>NOT include any</em>&quot;).</p>
<p>The requirement to &quot;<em>provide signed third-party authorizations upon request</em>&quot; 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.</p>
