|
Post by quetee on Aug 25, 2021 17:26:59 GMT
Spencer Elden, the man whose unusual baby portrait was used for one of the most recognizable album covers of all time, Nirvana’s “Nevermind,” filed a lawsuit Tuesday alleging that the nude image constituted child pornography.
The album cover depicts Elden underwater in a swimming pool as a then-infant with his genitalia exposed. The image has generally been understood as a statement on capitalism, as it includes the digital imposition of a dollar bill on a fishhook that the baby appears to be enthusiastically swimming toward. Non-sexualized nude photos of infants are generally not considered child pornography under law.
=================================================================== ummm....
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Aug 25, 2021 17:29:28 GMT
Here he is cashing in on the exact same photo a few years back btw........
|
|
|
Post by Pittsnogle_Goggins on Aug 25, 2021 17:29:32 GMT
Can’t wait for this lawsuit to get thrown out. What a bozo.
|
|
|
Post by quetee on Aug 25, 2021 17:31:47 GMT
Can’t wait for this lawsuit to get thrown out. What a bozo. And I hope the judge cusses his ass out for filing such a dumb lawsuit and I hope there's video of this verbal beat down.
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on Aug 25, 2021 18:40:59 GMT
This is ridiculous, and if I recall didn't this guy participate in anniversary stuff for the album in the past? A blatant cash grab.
And no, a normal naked picture of a baby is not child pornography. If you see a pic of a baby and think that that's a "you" problem.
|
|
|
Post by cheesecake on Aug 25, 2021 19:52:03 GMT
What.
|
|
cherry68
Based
Man is unhappy because he doesn't know he's happy. It's only that.
Posts: 3,736
Likes: 2,139
|
Post by cherry68 on Aug 27, 2021 6:53:25 GMT
It looks like his parents got 200 dollars for the photo but never signed a release. If you show someone's picture you need a release, especially if it's for commercial purposes, and above all if it's a minor.
Besides, it looks like that photo has been used in pedophile sites or something.
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on Aug 27, 2021 13:32:07 GMT
It looks like his parents got 200 dollars for the photo but never signed a release. If you show someone's picture you need a release, especially if it's for commercial purposes, and above all if it's a minor. Besides, it looks like that photo has been used in pedophile sites or something. Yeah, whether or not there was a release or whatever agreed-upon deal was in place will probably determine if this lawsuit goes through at all. As for the photo being used for pedophilic purposes, that's clearly not the authorized use or intent of the photo. WikiFeet exists but I don't think everybody who's ever been photographed barefoot is engaging in foot fetish porn.
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on Aug 27, 2021 17:15:47 GMT
It looks like his parents got 200 dollars for the photo but never signed a release. If you show someone's picture you need a release, especially if it's for commercial purposes, and above all if it's a minor. Besides, it looks like that photo has been used in pedophile sites or something. Someone could post a pic of a fully clothed child on a child porn site, doesn't mean you can arrest who originally distributed the picture for child pornography. Let's not overthink this. This guy never had a problem with this until he figured out he could try and make money from it.
|
|
cherry68
Based
Man is unhappy because he doesn't know he's happy. It's only that.
Posts: 3,736
Likes: 2,139
|
Post by cherry68 on Aug 27, 2021 18:02:05 GMT
I'm a photographer and I know I need a signed release to show my photos in public, unless it's a public person (like a celebrity or a politician) or a public event. Surely I need parents signature to publish an underage kid photo. I usually put a fog on kids face when I had to take photos on a sports race and kids were attending. I can't believe a professional photographer didn't ask a release.
|
|
cherry68
Based
Man is unhappy because he doesn't know he's happy. It's only that.
Posts: 3,736
Likes: 2,139
|
Post by cherry68 on Aug 27, 2021 18:05:44 GMT
It looks like his parents got 200 dollars for the photo but never signed a release. If you show someone's picture you need a release, especially if it's for commercial purposes, and above all if it's a minor. Besides, it looks like that photo has been used in pedophile sites or something. Someone could post a pic of a fully clothed child on a child porn site, doesn't mean you can arrest who originally distributed the picture for child pornography. Let's not overthink this. This guy never had a problem with this until he figured out he could try and make money from it. Maybe he was underage before and didn't know his photo was used in porn sites as a symbol of prostitution (child chasing a banknote). Maybe if he had been only a baby swimming, without the dollar, nobody would have minded it.
|
|
|
Post by jakesully on Aug 29, 2021 14:08:16 GMT
Here he is cashing in on the exact same photo a few years back btw........ what a fool
|
|
|
Post by theycallmemrfish on Aug 29, 2021 14:21:44 GMT
HE COULDN'T EVEN GET THE POSE RIGHT!
|
|
|
Post by thomasjerome on Jan 4, 2022 22:01:14 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Pittsnogle_Goggins on Jan 5, 2022 2:21:31 GMT
Can’t wait for this lawsuit to get thrown out. What a bozo. ^
|
|
|
Post by Martin Stett on Jan 5, 2022 2:23:11 GMT
Can’t wait for this lawsuit to get thrown out. What a bozo. ^ Well, the judge did leave open the possibility to rewrite the lawsuit into something that is presumably a bit less idiotic.
|
|