Posted on 08/24/2021 9:18:37 PM PDT by nickcarraway
So, how that he's no longer able to make money exploiting his bizarre celebrity over that album cover, he has discovered another more effective way to make money.
Ack! how = now
I didn’t say it did. But maybe the person whose picture it is has a reason to be offended.
Couldn’t just revel in it and get laid?
So he’s likely recreated the cover for money. But that money has dried up. So gotta go back to the well and make it pay just one more time.
CC
HAHA! One Christmas, years ago, when my daughter was in Catholic School, we bought a calendar to give to her teacher as a gift. Each month’s picture was an angel from an old painting. As we were getting ready to wrap it, my daughter realized that a couple of the angels were letting it all hang out!
So, we bought a different gift for the teacher and gave the calendar to someone else!
People need to lighten up. Not every naked baby picture is child porn.
He recreated the cover several times and has Nevermind tattooed on his chest; why the sudden change of heart? Also, I find it hard to believe that if the pic was unauthorized that his parents (or "legal guardians" as the article states) didn't take legal action in the 90's. The record label may, at best, owe this guy monetary comp for the use of the picture, it's a far cry from child porn. While your heart is in the right place, I would suggest you rethink your support of this guy; he's grifting.
A very good album though. I remember thinking maybe rock music would have turned the corner form the lame 80s. (Lame 80s applies to the music scene only)
Lets be real.. This is ludicrous. Who notices that stuff and is emotionally motivated? - A sick person.
Winner!
Way back when I was pursuing my BA in art history I had a class on symbology/iconography and the psychology of visual images. I recall in one text reading about a study of pedophiles in which a large portion of them cited that very same Coppertone image as a trigger upon which they had acted out their behaviors.
I remember that coming with the alternative cover in a CD. The nude photo of the kid did seem wrong.
A naked baby is not necessarily pornographic.
If you’ve seen the unedited cover of Scorpion’s Virgin Killer; then yeah. You’ve seen porn.
maybe someone recently recognized his shrinkage when he was skinny dipping...
sounds like he has a small uhhh yaknow even today.
I can’t believe that is a serious objection.
You are saying that since babies can’t be recognized as current adults we can put naked pictures of them wherever we like.
He may or may not be grifting.
It’s the principle of the thing.
Many of us on fr were sexually exploited or abused as children. It takes a while to sink in. That is the bizarre nature of sexual abuse. If someone punched me in the nose at 12 I’d know I was horribly assaulted. If a man felt me up in a department store at 12, which he did, it takes a long time for me to realize dude that was sexual molestation.
To say you can have naked photos of yourself as a baby used commercially is something neither you nor your parents should ever be allowed to consent to. Unless as I said perhaps legitimate medical purpose. Which should be a set standard.
The alternative is to allow anyone to print out child porn and call it art.
So as far as you are concerned anyone can print photos of naked children for commercial purposes and call it art and no consequences
This lawsuit makes even less sense than the idiots who sue their parents for circumcism or childhood vaccines they were given.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.