Apparently he didn’t make any money from that photo (nor did his parents give permission for its use) so he does have a point on claiming royalties I guess. As for the actual offence he’s claiming for… under us law, no offence occurred because he was too young for it to count (rediculous).
However, he has since made a number of amici “recreations” prior to making a complaint about the original which leads me to think he was perfectly happy with the original and that this is more of an opportunistic money-grab than genuine attempt to “clean these dirty streets” of this kind of imagery. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Apparently he didn’t make any money from that photo (nor did his parents give permission for its use) so he does have a point on claiming royalties I guess. As for the actual offence he’s claiming for… under us law, no offence occurred because he was too young for it to count (rediculous).
However, he has since made a number of amici “recreations” prior to making a complaint about the original which leads me to think he was perfectly happy with the original and that this is more of an opportunistic money-grab than genuine attempt to “clean these dirty streets” of this kind of imagery. "
But how does the "sexual exploitation" element come into it? Is it just cos it's a naked baby? I'm probably being very naive here, aren't I? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By *yronMan
over a year ago
grangemouth |
"Apparently he didn’t make any money from that photo (nor did his parents give permission for its use) so he does have a point on claiming royalties I guess. As for the actual offence he’s claiming for… under us law, no offence occurred because he was too young for it to count (rediculous).
However, he has since made a number of amici “recreations” prior to making a complaint about the original which leads me to think he was perfectly happy with the original and that this is more of an opportunistic money-grab than genuine attempt to “clean these dirty streets” of this kind of imagery.
But how does the "sexual exploitation" element come into it? Is it just cos it's a naked baby? I'm probably being very naive here, aren't I? "
That's basically it. His image was used and now he's suing, saying that he didn't give permission. His parents did, however and he should take it up with them.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Apparently he didn’t make any money from that photo (nor did his parents give permission for its use) so he does have a point on claiming royalties I guess. As for the actual offence he’s claiming for… under us law, no offence occurred because he was too young for it to count (rediculous).
However, he has since made a number of amici “recreations” prior to making a complaint about the original which leads me to think he was perfectly happy with the original and that this is more of an opportunistic money-grab than genuine attempt to “clean these dirty streets” of this kind of imagery.
But how does the "sexual exploitation" element come into it? Is it just cos it's a naked baby? I'm probably being very naive here, aren't I?
That's basically it. His image was used and now he's suing, saying that he didn't give permission. His parents did, however and he should take it up with them.
"
Youd think so, right? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *yronMan
over a year ago
grangemouth |
"Apparently he didn’t make any money from that photo (nor did his parents give permission for its use) so he does have a point on claiming royalties I guess. As for the actual offence he’s claiming for… under us law, no offence occurred because he was too young for it to count (rediculous).
However, he has since made a number of amici “recreations” prior to making a complaint about the original which leads me to think he was perfectly happy with the original and that this is more of an opportunistic money-grab than genuine attempt to “clean these dirty streets” of this kind of imagery.
But how does the "sexual exploitation" element come into it? Is it just cos it's a naked baby? I'm probably being very naive here, aren't I?
That's basically it. His image was used and now he's suing, saying that he didn't give permission. His parents did, however and he should take it up with them.
Youd think so, right? "
But it gets him more fame and he can make more money out of recreating the pose, so..... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
I've always found it "icky" when you see births in films and TV shows and someone has allowed their newborn baby to be naked and covered in goo for the realism. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
I always thought the image was saying "we are born chasing money" as the band had switched labels from the independent "Sub-pop" to "Geffen" for a vast sum of money. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *yronMan
over a year ago
grangemouth |
"I've always found it "icky" when you see births in films and TV shows and someone has allowed their newborn baby to be naked and covered in goo for the realism. "
I'm like that about all medical procedures on TV: it's intensely private and stuff can go wrong very quickly. It's a moment in people's lives that most would like to forget, not have coming up on YouTube for years to come. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Apparently he didn’t make any money from that photo (nor did his parents give permission for its use) so he does have a point on claiming royalties I guess. As for the actual offence he’s claiming for… under us law, no offence occurred because he was too young for it to count (rediculous).
However, he has since made a number of amici “recreations” prior to making a complaint about the original which leads me to think he was perfectly happy with the original and that this is more of an opportunistic money-grab than genuine attempt to “clean these dirty streets” of this kind of imagery.
But how does the "sexual exploitation" element come into it? Is it just cos it's a naked baby? I'm probably being very naive here, aren't I? "
I would assume its the naked thing. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
