Nirvana sued by the man who appeared on Nevermind’s album cover as a baby
bbc.com
bbc.com
Note this same guy re-created the album cover only 5 years ago. He didn't seem to have much of a problem at that time.
Elden himself hardly matters to this... a judge ordering the label to set $100 million on fire (or make a non-deductible charitable donation) would have the same effect.
I don’t see a legal quandary at all and, unless you think all minors’ likenesses should not be able to appear in commercial material, I don’t see a moral or ethical quandary. Plaintiff’s destination for their complaint is with their parents, IMO.
Same as if adult Mikey objected to being associated with Life cereal or adult Macauley Culkin objected to being in Home Alone.
Edit to add: > Elden says his parents never signed a release authorising the use of his image on the album.
Iff that claim is true (which should be a relatively straightforward finding of fact) and that fact means that the label didn’t have the rights to use the likeness [the claim doesn’t rely on a technicality of the word “release”, but where the label has a license to use], then I’d say he’s got a case.
I don’t see naked as equaling sexualized and I don’t see the Nirvana cover as the latter either, but I definitely can’t see a total ban on pictures in commercially-sold material being workable.
If its just that you think a naked baby is pornographic then I guess its an entirely different conversation. Its not really clear what motivates your statement here though.
Although likeness is regulated only at the state level, and is the only aspect of this lawsuit, copyright is regulated at the federal level and is the basis for the commercial licenses to exist at all - if this actually was child pornography which requires a category of something considered obscenity, it would be ineligible for copyright which would mean the existing licensors would have no reason to pay for the license at all, and there would be no value to give for the likeness settlement.
The rest is your feelings and that is not relevant here.
Its not a moral quandary it is a contractual quandary which the lawsuit accurately details.
If his parents didn't sign the likeness then anyone using the image has a liability issue. It doesnt matter if its the photographer, Nirvana, the record label, etc
Yes, your edit covers it and I would also say he has a case. Spoonjim has been correct the whole time. Somehow that opinion isnt seen as popular right now but the accuracy is not in question.
Ehh, that seems like pretty shaky logic. I think it's pretty safe to say that lots of people would be bothered by naked pictures of themselves being posted publicly for all to see, even if they can't be identified by the pictures.
That's not to say he's going to win, but I think you're simplifying things a bit too much.
The power in this case is damages which can be collected due to the ongoing commercial use.
Quotes from that interview:
Q: "What's it like knowing all these people have seen you naked?"
A: "What's it like knowing all these people have seen my baby penis? When I was a baby? Well, I'm not really a baby anymore, so I have to think it's not me or something. But it's a trip that a lot of people have seen my baby penis, as a baby. I went to a baseball game at the Dodgers, and I had a moment where I was looking out and thinking 'All these people have seen my baby penis, when I was a baby'. It's pretty... pretty crazy. It'd be nice to have a quarter for all the people who have seen my baby penis. But, you know, there's all kinds of puns you could throw on that. But... you know... maybe it doesn't matter though, it's cool to be a part of that recipe for success. Makes you think you could do it again. That might not happy, but it's a pretty big thing, to be a part of, low key, but it definitely trips you out. But then I try not to think about it, because it's not that big of a deal, there's a lot of things going on that are more important."
I mean, it goes on, but to me that reads as someone struggling to come to terms with something that happened to them when they couldn't consent. Most people would not be okay with having their naked image broadcast to the world before they could consent. And then add in the idea that others made a ton of money off content that used their naked image, and they saw almost none of that... it's understandable.
1) nobody would ever have known it was him if he hadn't been trying to milk it for celebrity
2) He's aiming at the record label because they've got the big bucks, but it's his parents who sold him out when they accepted 200$ for a photoshoot
Also, the way I read the articles, I don't believe he reached out for those recreations - the media reached out to him.
2) The record label are the ones who ultimately profited off the image.
Edit: Also, it's not like it was hidden that it was him on the album cover. Anyone who wanted to know who the baby was could easily find out it was him. It's in the wikipedia, and I imagine it was probably credited in the Album credits: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevermind#Artwork
That's probably how the media tracked him down for recreations.
Were the parents (or whomever consented) not compensated?
Just because the parents made a morally questionable choice to consent on behalf of their child doesn't absolve the record label of also making the morally questionable choice of distributing and profiting from the naked image of a child who couldn't consent for themselves.
i really don't see what the moral question is. they wanted a photo of a newborn swimming, they bought the photo of a newborn swimming
But a newborn can't. A 2 year old can't. A four year old can't. The line of when a kid can understand what they're consenting to gets blurry from there. And we probably just need much more nuanced consent laws rather than a blanket "You can legally consent at 18, and your parents can consent for you before that."
There are certain things we need to let parents consent to - like medical care. But we don't need to let parents consent to the use of their kids image in media. We don't need to allow parents to sell their kids.
And I don't think "Well, they can't consent and if we give them consent we can't do this class of thing" is a good enough reason to deny them the ability to consent.
So we can't use naked pictures of kids who can't consent in media, or pictures at all. So what? Voluntary consent is important. If respecting voluntary consent means there are things we can't do - then there are things we can't do.
To be clear, consent relates to things like, well, album covers and other types of commercial photography such as marketing and advertising. There's no consent needed for editorial (e.g. news) photography.
This also wouldn't even be a discussion if this were some obscure art photography. It just happens to be on an iconic album cover.
How far are you willing to push that?
Should I need to destroy photos that accidentally capture an infant in public?
Should children not get vaccine shots until they can meaningfully consent?
Relief in the courts would require a completely new body of common law. In the mean time, legislation would be the only way to provide compensation to victims of un-consented childhood photography.
What specific ideas do you have for laws that could start to provide this relief?
Just because parents consent doesn't mean that parents are looking out for their children or understand what the effects of fame as a young child will be.
I don't have cut and dried answers here, but I don't think you can pretend that there aren't ethical concerns with media protrayal of young children that need atleast some consideration.
Edit: Personally, I think that if a photograph of a naked baby was important to this piece of art, the ethical solution would have been to keep the baby's identity anonymous (at least until he was 18). That would have done a lot to balance the ethics here, especially as the identity of the baby shouldn't matter.
As an honest question, I'm curious whether the "naked" part makes this worse in your opinion. I, personally, don't feel any shame about my body at that age -- too young for me to even remember -- being seen. (As opposed to a nude photo of me now being distributed without my approval.)
To me it seems like the nakedness is irrelevant -- if it was a violation of consent to use his baby image, then clothes don't negate the violation.
Although, that said, those pictures have never surfaced. My feelings about them might change if a coworker pulled them up unexpectedly one day and started giving me shit for it.
Whatever our individual feelings about nudity - or how it should be perceived in society (and I agree, it should not be shameful or automatically sexualized the way it is) our society does view nudity a certain way. And people are allowed to feel about they feel about that. If it makes it worse for him, and it sure seems to, then that's something we have to respect. Even if we wish it were otherwise.
My main thing is voluntary consent. He couldn't. He should have been able to. I don't think parents should have the right to effectively sell their kids before they can consent. If that means we don't can't use kids younger than a certain age in modeling and marketing, so be it.
Another example: the instructions for my pediatric otoscope used photos of an infant, showing proper placement. This is a commercial use.
Do you propose that all of these photos should be made illegal?
EDIT: And what about movies? Should we ban infants and small children from film as well?
The record label profited off the music, not the image. The image on its own means nothing without the music.
He was a baby.
What kind of splitting hair intellectual rhetoric are we people getting into?
All of my uncles, aunts, neighbours, neighbours at the cottage, babysitters, people at the park saw me to some extent 'naked' at the park. Little girls considerably more often since they go topless.
It's the most normal thing on the planet and it's been that way for thousands of years for everyone.
I'm hoping is just an odd HN style discussion and not some kind of weird new social normalization that's happened very quickly, in one generation as an artifact of ultra urbane helicopter parenting.
This is not a debate: his parents will have, or not, consented to him being in a bit of commercial artwork. His being naked as baby is irrelevant. That's it.
> Spencer Elden, the man who was photographed as a baby on the album cover for Nirvana's Nevermind, is suing the band alleging sexual exploitation.
The article goes on:
> He also alleges the nude image constitutes child pornography.
> However, Elden's lawyer, Robert Y. Lewis, argues that the inclusion of the dollar bill (which was superimposed after the photograph was taken) makes the minor seem "like a sex worker".
It amazes me just how many HN users just say stuff without reading anything. The person being replied to also doesn't deserve the downvotes; it's an entirely valid point that the general population is likely to agree with. (not saying you downvoted in particular... I just find it baffling.)
The 'barely born baby, into the world chasing the dollar on the devil's rod' ... has come to life in the 'baby adult demanding money for something he's probably not owed, making hyperbolic claims of 'child porn'.
I think if he were not naked, he would have a much harder time with the 'sex crime' hyperbole.
Nudity isn't porn.
This is why recently I've been loving watching old videos of people living their everyday lives before technology oversocialized us.
Here's a recent one that I happened to find because I was researching the Boston accent:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omVFxtbZoyw
These days you'd think all these people were just actors in some 80's movie, but they were real people all walking up to each other and interacting organically. Nobody is staring down at phones, everyone is socially confident, kids are out playing, adults show affection towards the children, and so on. Some may disapprove of the lifestyle of these urban Boston Italians or certain things they say, but it's one reflection of a different time that really wasn't that long ago. This was before mainstream media scared the shit out of people and convinced them that the world is too dangerous, before people overexposed themselves on social media, before video games addicted children, before adults spent more time with their devices than with their families. Things weren't perfect in the old days by any means, but there were some good things about humanity that we've gradually suppressed in ourselves which we've been losing in a short period of time.
Like you, I grew up with a big family where the little ones were sometimes seen naked whether it was when we were running around in the dirt or taking baths together. By a certain age, our parents knew when to start having us to always wear clothes and bathe by ourselves. But there's what I would consider a precious window of innocence in young childhood where kids can exist and be themselves, clothed or not, free of the knowledge of sexuality. My sibling and cousins all were naked at one point or another as young kids and nobody feels scarred or exploited because our elders saw us naked in some vague memory.
It's quite normal for people to be embarrassed when their parents show baby pictures, especially if it involves nudity. It's transplanting the childish innocence onto the person's social present.
His parent's consent does not negate the harm done, possibly the opposite.
Did they? Seriously - would this album have sold a single fewer copies if the cover had been a picture of a duck, or a floating Pom-Pom, or any of a million other things?
To claim they profited from the photo, you’d have to prove that people bought one of the most popular albums of all time because this dudes baby parts were on the cover.
It was a thing that happened to him as a baby, and it sounds like he's had conflicted feelings about it. It doesn't seem reasonable to blame him for not acting in just the perfect way for his whole life to minimize the effects on him.
> 2) He's aiming at the record label because they've got the big bucks, but it's his parents who sold him out when they accepted 200$ for a photoshoot
It's not an either or thing. It's totally legitimate to blame all the parties involved.
However, of all the parties involved, his parents were likely the most ignorant of what this photo would become. From the OP:
> In 2008, Spencer's father Rick recounted the photo shoot to US radio network NPR, saying he had been offered $200 to take part by Weddle [the photographer], who was a family friend.
> "We just had a big party at the pool, and no one had any idea what was going on!"
> The family quickly forgot the photoshoot until, three months later, they saw the Nevermind album cover blown up on the wall of Tower Records in Los Angeles.
I kind of hesitate to use terms like this, but the intent of your comment seems to be to deflect blame towards the least responsible parties, which seems like a kind of victim blaming.
Poor bastard.
As soon as the child pornography argument falls flat on its face (assuming the prosecution is actually that boneheaded), the defense may argue that the magnitude of possible harm is very different considering how the body, mind, and memory of an infant hardly recognizable to their adult counterpart and that there is no sort of humiliating aspect to the album art that would cause the public to view the adult Elden in any negative way.
It's not as if Elden doesn't have some point to make. It's bad that he hasn't been compensated for being pictures on one of the most iconic albums ever made. But unless there's something revealed in trial that I don't know, it doesn't appear that the record company or the band did anything wrong. It all hinges on whether there was sexual child exploitation, and although some people on HN seem to believe that the image of the naked body of an infant is inherently sexual in nature (which is creepy to me, but what do I know), I highly doubt that a judge, jury, or regular people are going to buy that argument.
Given the easy availability of newborn babies, I think $200 is fair.
beautiful
We put giant photos of ourselves as babies, often naked, on sticks and wave around when we graduate. I have never heard anyone even hint at that being an issue.
And for the record, breastfeeding is the most natural thing in the world.
Sounds like the only issue he has with it is that HE didn't get any of the money.
And then... this article. Smells like a money grab to me as well.
I see what you did, there.
> It's not the first time Spencer has been asked to recreate the image - he has posed three times before for the album's 10th, 17th and 20th anniversaries.
> "I said to the photographer, 'Let's do it naked.' But he thought that would be weird, so I wore my swim shorts," Spencer told the New York Post.
If his parents didn’t sign a release then there is a claim. It doesn't matter if the subject felt good about it for some time. Actually, in your mind, how is that related? Its hard for me to relate so can you elaborate?
The additional claim of it being child pornography is not strong and is to get them to settle faster. Although he says there was an agreement about covering the genitals that seems broken, if there is no document that will be the only tricky part about the case (just in general contractual stipulations), but does also bolster the settlement claim.
That's exactly what the picture is of - the allure of capitalism hooking you right from the start.
> Elden alleges his "true identity and legal name are forever tied to the commercial sexual exploitation he experienced as a minor which has been distributed and sold worldwide from the time he was a baby to the present day".
Absolutely had no idea what the legal name of the naked baby on the cover of Nevermind was. But now I do!
This just seems like a cash grab (by him, or more likely some lawyer, idk.)
This (the dollar as a sex worker) seems to a difficult position to hold. We’ll see what will happen in court.
Edit: I’ve always thought the dollar was here to say “everyone want to be rich, also newborns”, or something similar, never thought the newborn as a sex worker.
probably because that's a completely ridiculous connection that nobody makes
Such a thing would still most probably be intended as a critical observation about the sorts of people that innocent babies become, rather than a literal depiction of a baby prostitute.
It's wow ridiculous.
So apparently he still can't keep his head above water on his own.
Well my sympathy goes more to guys like Aqualung and its painter anyway:
https://theoutline.com/post/4490/jethro-tull-aqualung-cover-...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17052400
If I were Spencer Elden, I wouldn't hold my breath on that one.
Nevermind.
So yeah, I guess that guy should get some of the Nirvana money. But cut the sex worker crap.
It’s a good point, and I think the age of consent is varied by state and country for just this reason.
- Jessica Alba - Leo DiCaprio - Ben Afleck - Ryan Reynolds - Selena Gomez - Ryan Gosling - Justin Timberlake - Julia Stiles - Elijah Wood - Lacey Chabert - Emma Watson - Joseph Gordon-Levitt - Neil Patrick Harris - Natalie Portman - Hayden Christensen - Ethan Hawke - Anna Paquin - Fergie - Kenan Thomson - Nick Canon - Scarlett Johansson - Jodie Foster - Christian Bale
IMDB lists 31.4 million actors and 20.3 million actresses. I don't think your short list of actors says much about the whole range of experiences.
And you think your even more anecdotal and even more vague "I haven't heard many positive stories from former child actors who talk about their experiences" does?
The article mentions that the plaintiff's parents were paid $200 by a photographer who was a friend of the family to have a photoshoot,and go as far as claiming that they were unaware of the whole pro photoshoot they held at the pool and were paid $200 to join was a photoshoot.
They also state that the record company even gave the plaintiff's family a commemorative record and a teddy bear a couple of months after the album release.
From this newspiece alone, and ignoring the fact that the plaintiff is known for having been milking his role in Nirvana's album cover since ever, it's hard to believe that a) the plaintiff and his whole family were not fully aware they willingly participated in a commercial photoshoot for which they were paid for, b) the plaintiff had an epiphany and change of heart regarding the event and suddenly felt he was a victim.
Harry Potter, but Harry is 18yo on his first day at Hogwarts. Every family sitcom disappears. And what about work entirely created by kids? I guess highschool drama clubs are out too. This gets very strange very quickly.
And are you really going to claim that the Olsens are normal?
When did Mickey Rooney start talking about how kids are treated in Hollywood? I'm surprised that at this point we have the ASPCA but no equivalent organization chaperoning kids on movie sets. Not only should this exist, but I think it should have an oversight board of former child actors. Foster, Barrymore and Feldman for instance would have a lot of hard questions to ask.
Barrymore has no qualms talking about how rough things got for her. One of her things is offering sometimes unsolicited advice to young actors about avoiding her worst mistakes. Foster simply doesn't talk much to anybody, and only part of that was because she was in the closet for decades (came out in '13, but apparently was an open secret as far back as '93 when an LGBT friend outed her to me). She fucked off to France to get some peace and quiet. Both of these have had careers at least as good as Olsen's.
Feldman, as far as I'm aware, still hasn't named the person who was ultimately responsible for Haim's suicide, even after #MeToo and Weinstein's defrocking.
All three have strong opinions about what constitutes sketchy. I'm not clear if the Olsen Twins have registered the ways that they could have had a better life and that makes me sad.
I don't recall if it was Barrymore or someone else who said that the problem with being a famous child is that you are too young to really understand friendship yet, and once people want things from you it's very hard to learn about it, because so many people are investing energy in pretending to be your friend. Imagine going through life not knowing what real friends look like.
"Throw everything at the wall and see what sticks", if you will.
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2015/jan/16/thats-m...
"It is a weird thing to get my head around, being part of such a culturally iconic image. But it’s always been a positive thing and opened doors for me. I’m 23 now and an artist, and this story gave me an opportunity to work with Shepard Fairey for five years, which was an awesome experience."
"It helps with girls, too"
"I might have one of the most famous penises in the music industry, but no one would ever know that to look at me. Sooner or later, I want to create a print of a real-deal re-enactment shot, completely naked. Why not? I think it would be fun."
If we want to talk about gross album covers, I seem to remember a Scorpions album from the 70s that I don't ever care to see again or even look up...
https://www.adforum.com/creative-work/ad/player/23267/baby/l...
Nirvana, before the release of "Nevermind", their first major label release ever, was just a local garage band from Aberdeen, WA (not even from Seattle). Nobody cared about them except some high school kids from Washington state who had seen them live. There was no internet, smart phones, or social media shaping our values and popular culture. People still listened to the radio and bought cassette tapes and CDs at local record stores. The majority of the social standards we are discussing here and now likely didn't even exist as widely shared common values in 1991, over 30 years ago.
Dude wasn't the "Nirvana baby" - he was just the neighbor/ baby of friend of the family who happened to be there at the time. If they didn't use him, any other baby would have been fine. The idea of the photo/ album cover design would have been made into reality either way with or without him as the specific baby.
The only internally consistent solution I can see is that children below age of consent should not be allowed to contribute to commercial art in any form. That’d mean no more child actors, and that would sound heretical to many, but I see no other solutio.
There are literally billions of photos of infants and young children used in instruction manuals, text books, advertising, and as stock photos.
Should all of these be made illegal? Should manufacturers and advertisers be sued for using these photos without the subjects' consent?
Going forward, do you propose we ban all infants and small children in movies and photographs? Do I need to apologize for letting my kids watch Look Who's Talking because its main characters were infants?
I have never seen such a clear cash in attempt. I hope the judge laugh's this guy out of the court room if it goes that far.
Idk if his claims of trauma are real or not, but I'll tell you what - that image was worth more than the ~$200 his parents got for it and on those grounds alone I'd award him a few hundred thousand.
But that is how our legal system works - you don't ask for what you really believe is fair, you throw everything at the wall to see what sticks. I suspect that the CP claim is just for negotiation, to get a settlement on the more reasonable claim.
Must be an american thing, nudity =sex
No need to be a smartass. What thought do you think I'm trying to convey here?
Perhaps you mean that the difference is that a fresco is art, but a photograph can't be art? In that case I imagine many photographers would disagree. I also imagine that you would disapprove of naked children on a fresco if that fresco were created today.
My most charitable interpretation would be that the difference has something to do with cultural relativism. That the frescos that have existed for hundreds of years are acceptable because they were made in a time when not all nudity was considered sexual, kind of like we don't hate the ancient Greeks for pederasty even though it would be frowned upon in modern times. But now we know it's wrong and child abuse. If that is true then why don't we point to these frescos as a dark point in human history, like with slavery?
I'm sure cultural relativism plays a part, too. If something looks like a renaissance painting people are primed to accept it as art.
But erlier:
> Elden says his parents never signed a release authorising the use of his image on the album.
Umm... get your story straight?
If the agreement was verbal, there would not be a signed release.
If there wasn't some kind of contract the second part (promising to use tape on genitals) would seem to contradict it.
It's very possible this is a cash grab. But it's also very possible the plantiff has come to believe what happened in the past was wrong, and truly wants recompense.
[0] https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-weird-al-phabet/id...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Off_the_Deep_End#/media/File:W...
What is the law in the US regarding photos captured either in public or on private property?
So I invite my friends around, one couple have a young son, another has a camera. The latter takes a picture of the former swimming in my pool.
Later, the latter sells the photo he took to a record company who put it on then cover of what would be one of the most critically acclaimed albums of the decade.
Is the law in the US that the photographer needs to get a release for any person in the photo? I don’t think that’s the case here in the UK, but I am willing to be corrected.
Here, I think if I take a photo anywhere where I am permitted, I own the copyright to the picture and can do anything I like with it. (I understand there are some exceptions, usually involving trademark rather than copyright?)
Someone might even monetize it by running a GAN service that, for a fee, hashes all an image's GAN inputs plus a snapshot of the code and publishes the hash in an Ethereum block to prove that (1) the image really was produced synthetically, and (2) it was produced no later than a certain timestamp. TODO: include keyword "NFT" for maximum hype.
Overnight, all Nirvana fans in the country became equated to sick pedophiles in possession of child pornography. Many got jailed, most just got onto the sex offenders list for life with no recourse available.
It's so relieving to know that you're leaving
As soon as you get paid
It's so relaxing to hear that you're asking
Whenever you get your way
It's so soothing to know that you'll sue me
Starting to sound the sameI wish the courts were ok with a response of "Are you fucking kidding me, or are you just batshit insane?" Even remotely arguing that this is somehow like child pornography is a grave disservice to all the actual victims of child porn. I sometimes wonder what it's like to go through life with absolutely no shame.
Naturally, it does not help that we now effectively have no privacy.
Apple have a list of photos they know are CSAM, or rather hashes of them, and the look for those and only those on your device.
They also introduced another thing that scans your kid's incoming and outgoing messages for what look like dodgy photos - that does look at general photo content (rather than compare to a list) which has been the source of a lot of the confusion.
(FWIW I still think the CSAM scanning is an incredibly bad idea and horribly slippery slope to start sliding on.)
In a practical sense, they could have called it anything and since they announced it in the same breath, my mental map keeps it under the same umbrella. It is not on me that Apple communicates poorly.
But lets get past that. The 'dodgy photos' functionality ( because that was indeed what I was referring to vs hash db ) is where it is going to get tricky. I am sure there will be parents, who will absolutely love it. Just as I am sure that there will be ones who think this will not end well.
Technically, that government agencies claim are CSAM and the "hash" is highly vulnerable to preimage attacks: I can take random unrelated photos and make them match other hashes, https://github.com/AsuharietYgvar/AppleNeuralHash2ONNX/issue...
This means people can take child porn images and modify them so they match targeted innocent images, and take innocent images and modify them so they match child porn.
Let’s not pretend that he would be suing Nirvana if that album sold 5000 copies either.
According to the article, there was informal consent but no signed release. I'm was pretty surprised to hear that -- isn't obtaining releases pretty standard for large corporations?
>Elden says his parents never signed a release authorising the use of his image on the album.
Sorry I meant, what would be the legal basis for the suit?
Nirvana should be covered by his parents giving their consent, since they was his legal guardian. If he doesn't think that consent should have been given he needs to go after the people who gave it. But I don't think that case would go very far either.
Otherwise any adult who felt embarrassment over their appearance in media as a minor could sue and parental consent to do those activities has no meaning.
ADDED: And if your response is that "But he was nude" then your beef is with the law that didn't make this illegal. There are of course borderline cases. See Brooke Shields in "Pretty Baby" for example which caused quite a bit of controversy at the time. (And, indeed, as I wrote elsewhere, I'm pretty sure no major record label would go near this cover with a 100 foot pole today not because it would likely be illegal but because it would be a lightning rod.)
The record company should (only slightly ironically) keep records.
If they exist this case is going nowhere. If they don't - that might get interesting.
It's hard to imagine a situation where a record company ends up with naked pictures of someones kid, the parent gets paid, and the parent is genuinely not ok with the pics appearing on an album cover.
I agree it's more interesting if there's no consent form, but I still would hope the court would side with the record company.
The money was given for some reason. What reason did the parents think?
A written agreement definitely helps to clarify the matter, but is neither necessary nor sufficient to guarantee a resolution.
A verbal agreement absolutely can be an enforceable contract. The crux is whether there was a meeting of the minds. Of course, without documentation this is hard to prove, so you find people arguing it either direction in legal disputes.
Major record companies have legal departments. They're not going to greenlight an album cover without rights to the images. Anyone who works in publishing knows how strictly this stuff is treated at a major label.
The nudity and the scale.
I don't think anyone expected this album to be a commercial success, much less one of the most iconic rock albums in history.
That exists in the concept of "frivolous litigation" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frivolous_litigation This has been used in response to some "sovereign citizen" cases (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_citizen_movement#Leg...), and it can result in penalties like fines.
There's also "vexatious litigation", for when you're effectively trying to use the court system to harass someone.
(I am so not a lawyer, would love if a lawyer could correct me)
So the POV paraphrased was: someone could consider it CP, I'm not going to argue whether it is or isn't, but it will be disruptive and I'm here to teach and the class to learn so let's nip this in the bud and get on with my lesson.
I thought that was a very reasonable take on the situation which was getting disruptive first period history class. much more reasonable than a suspension or the like.
If someone made the same case for a woman wearing a regular skirt in class, (I hope) everyone would be up in arms, and rightfully so.
(Personally, I had to wear a jacket and tie though, so what do I know.)
The students were wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam War; they prevailed:
> The court observed, "It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate."
> The Court held that for school officials to justify censoring speech, they "must be able to show that [their] action was caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint," that the conduct that would "materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school."
(From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinker_v._Des_Moines_Independe...)
- The Supreme Court ruling probably has a fair bit of wiggle room especially where the clothing doesn't make an explicit political statement
- The Supreme Court is not in the classroom. The teacher is.
https://www.justice.gov/criminal-ceos/child-pornography
ADDED: And, no, I would not be putting this album cover in my carry-on to get on a plane. I don't really expect a random TSA agent to be up on legal details of what photography is OK and what isn't.
The term is being used for PR and sensationalistic purposes in relation to a civil lawsuit.
The logical end to the argument is that children should never appear in any kind of commercial media because they can't consent, which... come on man. Worst of all, though I'm no lawyer, it seems like there's definitely a non-zero chance he'll get counter-sued by each defendant when his own lawsuit falls apart.
That's not so unreasonable, considering how child stardom seems to mess with kids. Maybe better motion capture+deep fake tech will let professional actors appear as kids in media. Abolishing child labor may have seemed as ridiculous a few hundred years ago as this does today.
https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/YouthRules/young-workers/no...
In my justification 14 years can legally hold some jobs.
Are girl scouts going door to door and selling cookies performing labour?
Children unloading and loading the dishwasher at home?
Elden isn't a star of anything. His infant likeness appears on an album in the 90's and 99.99999% of people don't know who the hell he is. His argument is that the mere appearance of his naked infant body with a superimposed dollar bill is child exploitation of sexual nature. In spite of his current stance, he's taken photos in his adulthood that resemble the album art in question (albeit with swim trunks on), the argument seems disingenuous and out of left field, and he could never claim to have been damaged by some sort of stardom because nobody identified him until he literally outed himself as the baby on that cover.
It didn’t involve the courts (at that stage), but Arkell versus Pressdram comes close to this. If you haven’t come across it before it’s a short and sweet read.
First, now he'll be even more known.
Second, the vast majority that didn't think about "sex worker" will begin to associate such idea.
P.S. I once posted a naked baby pic of me on a dating site and it almost got me in a lot of trouble.
And I do wonder if he TELLS people he randomly meets that he's the nude swimming nirvana baby.
All that being said, people change over their lifetime and this is likely a result of that.
It's more likely that Corona has taken a large chunk out of the cash flow, and now it would be nice with a boost of the finances.
This is clearly bad thinking. He should re-take the same picture today , it would sell for much more. Hell, he could take one every year
Edit: Whoa! Look at the guy holding child pornography in his own hands! https://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/world-news/2021/08/2...
I hope he does not use an iPhone
In the age of the internet, should consent given on behalf of a minor be in perpetuity?
I think the point you are trying to make is that a legal guardian cannot offer consent that is unlawful, as such consent would not be valid.
Perhaps that is the angle the plantiff is going for--that any oral consent given is unlawful and voided because the image was used in a pornographic way.
"I've been harmed by having completely irrelevant and optional fame available to claim at my discretion" doesn't sound like a strong claim worth lots of money.
But I am pretty sure that - as long as he wasn't fairly poor (which warps perception) - he could have told them no on the 20th and 25th.
Though this is a bit embarrassing, this is 10^sth * 15^2, I really ought to know my squares. Getting the exponent right is a minor detail though.
I don't think you can use that to discount his real complaint, he got his baby photos used on a record and got almost nothing for it.
A man's gotta have a little money to build his own swimming pool
On one hand I get it, he didn't consent and what not. But the guy is 30. Why didn't he sue 10 years ago? I have feeling it's because he's trying to ride the wave of political correctness and cancel culture...
If he got paid 200$ back in the day, and thinks he deserves more money, that is fairly simple case to make and most people would agree.
He is not helping his case by shouting wolf. How would you feel about this article if you or one of your children were an actual sexual assault victim?
[0] https://www.deseret.com/indepth/2020/10/17/21452574/qanon-q-...
I'll agree it's similar, but the fact that his parents made the decision for him does make it different.
We should tread carefully with this kind of cases. It's an obvious money grab from his part, everyone knows it. But also, due to the fact that we can't agree with everyone that comes publicly disagreeing with the parent's decisions.
Then he could mint it as an NFT and auction it for millions (or peanuts depending on the market at the time).
Also what happened to Chia?
All I know is that hard drives are still marked up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law)
"In law, standing or locus standing is a condition that a party seeking a legal remedy must show they have by demonstrating to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case."
The guy is on the picture. He has probably been butt of jokes his entire life. He has legal standing.
Legal standing has nothing to do with whether he is or isn't right. It just allows him to present the case.
You know, the eye of the beholder...
I hope he wins and creates a precedent so the degree of absurd in this field gets serious and the shit hits the fan. This would be so fun.
PS: I don't advocate actual child porn but I do advocate nudity.
Edit: Touched a nerve, apparently.
Clearly. Because apparently you can't think "Wow, how did this get approved? It seems like such a violation of societal norms. I wonder how they managed to do it."
Geffen was hoping it could sell maybe 200,000 copies globally to a mainly underground/indie audience and it wouldn’t get picked up by the mainstream. For the follow up album the band agreed to change a song name and modify album art so Wal-Mart would carry it.