And is that a "Nevermind" logo tattoo'd across his chest?
Even if he has been suffering from this, the many times he has referred to (and reproduce) the iconic image for humor value is going to be a pretty large barrier to jump over, coupled with his parents being paid for the shoot and further coupled with the fact that pictures of naked babies are hardly unusual.
In related news, descendants of those who died in the Hindenburg disaster are suing Led Zeppelin for forcing them to relive the trauma of their family members who perished in the disaster, ... and the general public is suing Marilyn Manson for putting a likeness of himself on an album cover, more than once even. The horror of it all.
Is he suing his parents as well. They undoubtedly signed all the required releases.
If he didn't pose with the album cover, not a soul in the world would know it was him as a baby.
As usual, AI avoids several pertinent facts of this story. Like, his parents supposedly never signed a release for the photo and they were not compensated for its use. And you’re right, nobody would know, or even care, that he was the baby in the photo if not for him self-promoting the fact since he was 17. Plus, for someone that suffered “lifelong damage”, $150k per defendant (17 of them) seems sort of low considering his attorneys will end up banking a nice chunk of it.
correction: upon further reading, I found that his father actually received $200 for the photo, the same amount Elden himself was paid when he posed again to mark the 2016 25th anniversary of the album.
Actually the law suit claims that "his guardian at the time" did not consent for him to be photograph in his birthday suit. It does not say anything about the parents being involved, does that mean someone at the time was taking care of his which were not his parents. I suspect they do not want to lay blame at the feet of the parents. The law suit also claim in the "agreement" to use the image it would not show any private parts and they went ahead and show them anyway. This claim goes against the claim there was no consent given. You can not claim you had some sort of agreement then turn around and say they did not have consent to use the image. The fact he is claiming there was an agreement imply their was consent.
Also this article is about the fact this image would not be flag with apple image scanning algorithm, it was not about what this kid may or may not have been paid or agreed too. As the article point out images like this are totally legal, artistic nude images are allowed, the problem is who gets to decide what is artistic or what has gone beyond art. Do you want Apple to make that decision or some group of people who believe it their job to rid the world of any images they think child abuse.
I think this law suite is timely to this discussion about whether Apple should be scanning phone, your computer or file stored on their website looking for objectional materials. Apple it claiming the high road and by saying the only comparing to a known CSAM image data base. How do we know what is in that Database, what good is the database if the real evil people are creating new images not in the database.
Face it this is about getting is name back into the news cycle and some how take advantage of this situate to make money, whether from the law suit or he has something else planned. It like the nipple slip of Janet Jackson at the superbowl, that paid big dividends over the years even those the NFL and others were sued by the FCC for her actions.
Is he suing his parents as well. They undoubtedly signed all the required releases.
If he didn't pose with the album cover, not a soul in the world would know it was him as a baby.
As usual, AI avoids several pertinent facts of this story. Like, his parents supposedly never signed a release for the photo and they were not compensated for its use. And you’re right, nobody would know, or even care, that he was the baby in the photo if not for him self-promoting the fact since he was 17. Plus, for someone that suffered “lifelong damage”, $150k per defendant (17 of them) seems sort of low considering his attorneys will end up banking a nice chunk of it.
correction: upon further reading, I found that his father actually received $200 for the photo, the same amount Elden himself was paid when he posed again to mark the 2016 25th anniversary of the album.
Actually the law suit claims that "his guardian at the time" did not consent for him to be photograph in his birthday suit. It does not say anything about the parents being involved, does that mean someone at the time was taking care of his which were not his parents. I suspect they do not want to lay blame at the feet of the parents. The law suit also claim in the "agreement" to use the image it would not show any private parts and they went ahead and show them anyway. This claim goes against the claim there was no consent given. You can not claim you had some sort of agreement then turn around and say they did not have consent to use the image. The fact he is claiming there was an agreement imply their was consent.
Also this article is about the fact this image would not be flag with apple image scanning algorithm, it was not about what this kid may or may not have been paid or agreed too. As the article point out images like this are totally legal, artistic nude images are allowed, the problem is who gets to decide what is artistic or what has gone beyond art. Do you want Apple to make that decision or some group of people who believe it their job to rid the world of any images they think child abuse.
I think this law suite is timely to this discussion about whether Apple should be scanning phone, your computer or file stored on their website looking for objectional materials. Apple it claiming the high road and by saying the only comparing to a known CSAM image data base. How do we know what is in that Database, what good is the database if the real evil people are creating new images not in the database.
Face it this is about getting is name back into the news cycle and some how take advantage of this situate to make money, whether from the law suit or he has something else planned. It like the nipple slip of Janet Jackson at the superbowl, that paid big dividends over the years even those the NFL and others were sued by the FCC for her actions.
I read 2 different articles that said the photographer was a good friend of his father. I’m not saying either of us is right or wrong, only that someone involved with the case is either being deceptive now, or was deceptive in the past.
And is that a "Nevermind" logo tattoo'd across his chest?
Even if he has been suffering from this, the many times he has referred to (and reproduce) the iconic image for humor value is going to be a pretty large barrier to jump over, coupled with his parents being paid for the shoot and further coupled with the fact that pictures of naked babies are hardly unusual.
What a loser. He’s still hanging onto the achievement he received as a baby by luck.
We’re living in the #MeToo era but luckily he’s male and will be dismissed real nicely like he should.
Kind of a vague definition, isn't it? That image doesn't trigger CASM because it doesn't that's why. Don't ask deeper questions about other images and who gets to decide and what it would be like looking at millions of images trying to figure out which is added to the hash list and which is not?
I wonder if he has been earning a decent living. For someone to take up a fight that clearly belongs to his parents seems desperate for money, fame or both. He's probably been bragging about that cover his entire life. What a sad man.
He's desperate. Claims he's still living with his mother. He also brags a lot about it, including to dates. Then his sob story is that the women dump him when they find out he's not making big bucks off the album cover.
Comments
Even if he has been suffering from this, the many times he has referred to (and reproduce) the iconic image for humor value is going to be a pretty large barrier to jump over, coupled with his parents being paid for the shoot and further coupled with the fact that pictures of naked babies are hardly unusual.
Also this article is about the fact this image would not be flag with apple image scanning algorithm, it was not about what this kid may or may not have been paid or agreed too. As the article point out images like this are totally legal, artistic nude images are allowed, the problem is who gets to decide what is artistic or what has gone beyond art. Do you want Apple to make that decision or some group of people who believe it their job to rid the world of any images they think child abuse.
I think this law suite is timely to this discussion about whether Apple should be scanning phone, your computer or file stored on their website looking for objectional materials. Apple it claiming the high road and by saying the only comparing to a known CSAM image data base. How do we know what is in that Database, what good is the database if the real evil people are creating new images not in the database.
Face it this is about getting is name back into the news cycle and some how take advantage of this situate to make money, whether from the law suit or he has something else planned. It like the nipple slip of Janet Jackson at the superbowl, that paid big dividends over the years even those the NFL and others were sued by the FCC for her actions.
(I could only find one right now)
We’re living in the #MeToo era but luckily he’s male and will be dismissed real nicely like he should.