My friend, a young artist at the start of his career, offered to sell me a 1 percent share in him for $9,000. I would receive a portion of his lifetime earnings but would have no say in the sort of work he did. This seems like a good deal for us both, but it does feel a bit like slavery. Is this agreement ethical? -- Patrick Hebron, Brooklyn, N.Y.

This deal might show a lack of business acumen -- few artists hit the jackpot -- but it is not unethical. This scheme is akin to investing in any corporation, albeit a corporation of one.

Your slavery analogy is inapt. The key moral element in slavery is the slave's lack of say in the matter. (Pick cotton? For no pay? And frequent beatings? Count me in!) Your friend's situation differs significantly even from indentured servitude in that it places no restrictions on what sort of work he does or where or for how long he does it. His only obligation is to pay out some of his proceeds. Nor do you seem to be exploiting any financial desperation on his part.

There is even a sort of precedent: Bowie bonds. In 1997, David Bowie issued $55 million worth of 10-year bonds backed by the revenue from 25 of the albums in his catalog. The venture began well, but in 2004 the bonds' rating fell to just above junk-bond status, to Baa3 from A3, partly in response to falling record-industry sales. Another precursor: the new French Open tennis champion Ana Ivanovic, who received the backing of a Swiss businessman when she was 14 in exchange for repayment if she hit it big some day.

Your friend gets quick cash; you get a shot at a Picassoesque payday, a fair opportunity for you both. (And if your friend makes a career change? Celebrate if he turns into Bill Gates or Warren Buffett; weep if he becomes a hobo or poet or classics scholar.)

I work for a company that refers patients to doctors. Doctors pay to be on our list, and for a larger fee a doctor can be the only name for a geographic area. Patients may get the impression that such a doctor is the only one we find good enough to recommend, although we make no such claim. Is it ethical for doctors to develop leads this way? Is our exclusive-territory feature ethical? -- S.B., San Diego

It depends on the name of your company. If it is Medi-Shill or Tout-a-Doc, you're in the clear. You ensure that all who use your service understand what they're getting. And you position yourself to produce a terrific line of company T-shirts. I'd wear one.

But if your company has a less revealing, more magisterial name and the patients who contact you assume that your imprimatur represents an unbiased evaluation, then you're giving me flulike symptoms (morally speaking). Your long lists are dubious and your exclusive listings even worse, a judgment that encompasses both your company and the doctors who pay you. Continued...