Jump to content

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Robert M Estall said:

Chancer?

I'm not an internet lawyer but, I am guessing this will settle out of court. The "baby" stands to make something from this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, I forgot to mention... He is also suing the photographer Kirk Weddle

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Rico said:

Oh, I forgot to mention... He is also suing the photographer Kirk Weddle

 

actually suing everyone, except the guilty parties, the pimps who profited from his nudity, because they don't have money.  Typical US suing environment. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, meanderingemu said:

 

actually suing everyone, except the guilty parties, the pimps who profited from his nudity, because they don't have money.  Typical US suing environment. 

I guess the good news is that if you tried to put that image on an album cover or anything else today, you would probably wind up in jail.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Rico said:

I guess the good news is that if you tried to put that image on an album cover or anything else today, you would probably wind up in jail.

 

 

see i think that's a sad news to be honest, that we are in a society where people are actually aroused by that. there should not be anything sexual about that image. 

 

but based on the fact it is, yes i agree

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

So this guy, now in his 30's, just now says he was traumatized by the photo use.  However, he liked it enough that he got a large tattoo across his chest with the word, "Nevermind", inked in the same font as the album cover and he has done reenactment photo shoots, to mimic the original cover.  Also, in the U.S., a photo of a naked baby isn't considered child pornography unless it is obviously sexualized.  This is according to a radio program I was listening to yesterday.  The lawyer for this man is saying that the money on the fishhook is what makes it sexualized.  It may not go far in the court but then it could be settled out of court. It will be interesting to see how this all ends up.

  • Like 2
  • Sad 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Michael Ventura said:

So this guy, now in his 30's, just now says he was traumatized by the photo use.  However, he liked it enough that he got a large tattoo across his chest with the word, "Nevermind", inked in the same font as the album cover and he has done reenactment photo shoots, to mimic the original cover.  Also, in the U.S., a photo of a naked baby isn't considered child pornography unless it is obviously sexualized.  This is according to a radio program I was listening to yesterday.  The lawyer for this man is saying that the money on the fishhook is what makes it sexualized.  It may not go far in the court but then it could be settled out of court. It will be interesting to see how this all ends up.

 

 

i still want the owner of the Album art to sue the guy for copyright misuse for any money he earned from images featuring the Nevermind tattoo. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.