LogFAQs > #957515098

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, Database 9 ( 09.28.2021-02-17-2022 ), DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	The baby on the Nirvana cover is suing them for CP
Far-Queue 08/28/21 7:50:37 AM #77:	PunishedOni posted... just that it's private and the baby can't consent to that. That would open up things to question children in advertising, in television and movies, etc. To paraphrase the Bible: "It's a slippery slope" not disagreeing per se just pointing that out. Perhaps there needs to be legislation (if it doesn't already exist) protecting child performers that creates an avenue for them to seek compensation or protections from their work later in life, should a situation like this arise. As for its mass production... it's artwork, and it was used as an album cover. But again, it's art. You may be bothered by it, but there are countless people who are not bothered by it, and who wouldn't be bothered in being the baby in that photo. Which is why I have a problem, not with this dude's lawsuit, but in the way he's presenting it and framing his argument. If he had argued that his parents and therefore he had been underpaid, or that there should have been further compensation given the albums success, then that I could get behind. But to live your life glorifying the fact that you're the Nevermind baby - going so far as to recreate the photo multiple times, getting a "Nevermind" tattoo, etc - then turn around and claim that it's now offensive to you is straight BS, especially in light of that quote from my previous post. It shows that he clearly thinks he's made a significant contribution to Nirvana's success and is owed some sort of validation or recognition or some shit. It could've been any baby on that album. He's not special. He's a fucking clown. --- https://imgur.com/ZwO4qO2 "I'm a pathetic Simp and am proud to be exploited" - Lord_Shadow <cite>Far-Queue posted [p:957515098] in The baby o... [t:79632000]...</cite> <quote>PunishedOni posted... </cite> <quote>just that it's private and the baby can't consent to that.</quote>That would open up things to question children in advertising, in television and movies, etc. To paraphrase the Bible: "It's a slippery slope" not disagreeing per se just pointing that out. Perhaps there needs to be legislation (if it doesn't already exist) protecting child performers that creates an avenue for them to seek compensation or protections from their work later in life, should a situation like this arise. As for its mass production... it's artwork, and it was used as an album cover. But again, it's art. You may be bothered by it, but there are countless people who are not bothered by it, and who wouldn't be bothered in being the baby in that photo. Which is why I have a problem, not with this dude's lawsuit, but in the way he's presenting it and framing his argument. If he had argued that his parents and therefore he had been underpaid, or that there should have been further compensation given the albums success, then that I could get behind. But to live your life glorifying the fact that you're the Nevermind baby - going so far as to recreate the photo multiple times, getting a "Nevermind" tattoo, etc - then turn around and claim that it's now offensive to you is straight BS, especially in light of that quote from my previous post. It shows that he clearly thinks he's made a significant contribution to Nirvana's success and is owed some sort of validation or recognition or some shit. It could've been any baby on that album. He's not special. He's a fucking clown. --- https://imgur.com/ZwO4qO2 "I'm a pathetic Simp and am proud to be exploited" - Lord_Shadow</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1