iansane said:
These kind of people have to know they spew lunacy and no one believes them, right? How do they go out in public knowing that everyone thinks they're a tool?
Common sense isn't that common.
iansane said:
These kind of people have to know they spew lunacy and no one believes them, right? How do they go out in public knowing that everyone thinks they're a tool?
Common sense isn't that common.
RevRico said:mtn said:Marjorie Suddard said:He has admitted in other interviews that his parents received $200 for the shoot.
Margie
See, two things can be true. He can make a legitimate (IMHO) claim that he deserves some compensation for that all these years after the fact, despite legally having no grounds for it. I would think that he does deserve more, back when they did the shoot Nirvana was a complete unknown. That album became one of the biggest ever, and the image is immediately recognizable. He had no choice in whether he was on it or not, and now just about everyone born after 1975 has seen his willy.
But to claim it is child pornography? C'mon. I also wonder if he lawyered up and asked the band about it, outside of the courts and outside of the press, what would have happened? Good chance it would have come out to his favor. This? Won't.
But what is the claim though? "My parents were too stupid to negotiate a royalties clause in the contract they signed for my picture, so I deserve more money 30 years later, despite having made my own money recreating it through the years which would probably fall against the law if the contracts (and laws that bind them and the United States of Disney's draconian copyright laws) were actually read and enforced?"
The precedence that could set is a can of worms that only a really scummy lawyer would want to open. That's like victim agent level scummy.
I don't disagree - Let's not forget, Willie Nelson sold Crazy for $50. But that is kind of my point - why wouldn't he try to go through a non-public route, not through the courts? This is just stupid.
RevRico said:mtn said:Marjorie Suddard said:He has admitted in other interviews that his parents received $200 for the shoot.
Margie
See, two things can be true. He can make a legitimate (IMHO) claim that he deserves some compensation for that all these years after the fact, despite legally having no grounds for it. I would think that he does deserve more, back when they did the shoot Nirvana was a complete unknown. That album became one of the biggest ever, and the image is immediately recognizable. He had no choice in whether he was on it or not, and now just about everyone born after 1975 has seen his willy.
But to claim it is child pornography? C'mon. I also wonder if he lawyered up and asked the band about it, outside of the courts and outside of the press, what would have happened? Good chance it would have come out to his favor. This? Won't.
But what is the claim though? "My parents were too stupid to negotiate a royalties clause in the contract they signed for my picture, so I deserve more money 30 years later, despite having made my own money recreating it through the years which would probably fall against the law if the contracts (and laws that bind them and the United States of Disney's draconian copyright laws) were actually read and enforced?"
The precedence that could set is a can of worms that only a really scummy lawyer would want to open. That's like victim agent level scummy.
Not only that, he was too young to sign any contracts. His parents gave the permission to use his likeness. If he should sue anyone, it would have to be his parents for giving away an image of his likeness for so little.
Of course, his parents don't have as much money...
I feel a certain amount of contempt for pecker-boy, but mostly I feel sympathy for someone who has done, I presume, absolutely nothing with his life other than obsess over something minor that he doesn't even remember. Sad, really, the pursuit of fame.
Having thought about it more, I'm kinda mad at this dude.
I'm mad not because its going to damage Nirvana (because... LOL) but more because the only thing this is going to do in certain minds is support the belief that when this happens its always because this is the scenario.
In this case I fully think that the crying of "I was abused/exploited!" is solely a money grab. Its the same vein as Jussie Smollet or the Duke Lacrosse debacle. Its a massive amount of bullE36 M3, but its going to be massively known bullE36 M3 and the next time some poor person that was abused calls out for justice (like the Cosby women) they'll just point at this goober and say "its just a money grab like the Nevermind kid"
Mr_Asa said:Having thought about it more, I'm kinda mad at this dude.
I'm mad not because its going to damage Nirvana (because... LOL) but more because the only thing this is going to do in certain minds is support the belief that when this happens its always because this is the scenario.
In this case I fully think that the crying of "I was abused/exploited!" is solely a money grab. Its the same vein as Jussie Smollet or the Duke Lacrosse debacle. Its a massive amount of bullE36 M3, but its going to be massively known bullE36 M3 and the next time some poor person that was abused calls out for justice (like the Cosby women) they'll just point at this goober and say "its just a money grab like the Nevermind kid"
This is a superb post. Just wanted to quote it so it shows again.
So, reading a bit more about this brings up some interesting points.
The guy from Geffen records made a note about possibly redacting the babies penis to avoid backlash. Had they have done that, would old mate now be bleating about being immaculated as opposed to exploited/abused?
Kurt also realised there could be an issue with the nudity and suggested they could cover the baby’s genitals if they had to.
“We prepared to alleviate that problem if anyone were to freak out about it by putting a sticker on it saying, ‘If you are offended by this, you must be a closet paedophile,’” Cobain told Hot Metal in 1991
Which I find funny, because he wasn't wrong.... If you're offended by a naked infant, it's you with the problem.
And here's a quote from money grabber confirming he's just sore he didn't get a better slice of the pie (though you'd have to think if he had a bit of smarts he would have exploited his profile for better financial gain)
“Everyone involved in the album has tons and tons of money,” he said. “I’m living in my mum’s house and driving a Honda Civic.
It’s hard not to get upset when you hear how much money was involved"
It's even harder to accept that you have nobody to blame for your situation but you.
Pretty sad when you measure you life against one moment in time that you had no memory of or control over.
"Oh, the XXX was a hit so I deserve to get paid more" - sez' everybody
"Oh, the XXX was a flop so I gave my salary back" - sez' nobody
My suggestion. Change the album cover going forward such as redacted genitalia. Simultaneously, give the kid/man full rights to the photo with genitalia.
After that, we will see if the kid/man wanted the genitalia removed or not. All he will be left with is the rights to a picture which f he promotes will be seen as promotion of kido-porn.
mr2s2000elise said:Ron Jeremy in jail for rape.
Nirvana child porn
Michael Avenatti mistrial
What is the world coming to
With any luck...the end.
despite a bunch of prudes insisting, nudity isn't pornography.
Also.. Something something non fungible token.
In reply to Appleseed :
Hallelujah
John Welsh said:My suggestion. Change the album cover going forward such as redacted genitalia. Simultaneously, give the kid/man full rights to the photo with genitalia.
After that, we will see if the kid/man wanted the genitalia removed or not. All he will be left with is the rights to a picture which f he promotes will be seen as promotion of kido-porn.
Quoted for hell yes ^^^
The 30 year Anniversary of this album is coming up. What better way to release a new pressing than with a different cover/controversy.
wheelsmithy (Joe-with-an-L) said:
Weird Al is suing himself for that album cover. Says he didn't get the donut he was promised.
Even before I was a full time photographer for a decade I thought it was crazy that the naked baby photo was the album cover....even as a teenager I thought it was weird. As a pro photographer- I can't see any way that I would have agreed to that shoot for that product for any amount of money.
If that picture gets defined as CP, then is everyone who owns the album suddenly a criminal?
JamesMcD said:If that picture gets defined as CP, then is everyone who owns the album suddenly a criminal?
Only if the parents fail at their job and the kid grows up to be a E36 M3head.
grover said:Even before I was a full time photographer for a decade I thought it was crazy that the naked baby photo was the album cover....even as a teenager I thought it was weird. As a pro photographer- I can't see any way that I would have agreed to that shoot for that product for any amount of money.
Don't know whose idea the photo was, but Kurt didn't know that Teen Spirit was a product. Someone wrote "(person) smells like teen spirit" on a blackboard as a joke and he thought it was really poetic, so he used it. Later, after the song went nuclear-popular, he was horrified that he accidentally wrote a product placement jingle. Which, of course, he didn't, but, we're still not exactly talking about the brightest bulb here, I guess.
In reply to Pete. (l33t FS) :
I was always curious about that. Really cool story.
While I'm meh about Nirvana ( yes I know they were great yadda yadda) I can't imagine what went thru anyone's head on the cover.
" Hey guys look at this album cover this weird flannel band wants to use. It's a great euphemism for consumerism and such. I think what's really gonna sell it is a whole eyeful of baby penis. Who's with me?"
Seriously....the cover is fine without baby penis and then we don't have to talk about the artistic integrity of keeping baby penis alive on the cover.
'cause there are more people than you think fighting for the artistic integrity of baby penis.
Without that.....dude has nothing to sue everyone over. The guy is an idiot for sure anyway, maybe that was the pinnacle of his development there though......which if you think about it makes the whole lawsuit make a lot more sense.
grover said:Even before I was a full time photographer for a decade I thought it was crazy that the naked baby photo was the album cover....even as a teenager I thought it was weird. As a pro photographer- I can't see any way that I would have agreed to that shoot for that product for any amount of money.
What about the Blind Faith album cover?
You'll need to log in to post.
