| Nirvana being sued 0n several counts on 11:09 - Aug 25 with 2100 views | chicoazul |
The idea that a picture on an album cover is child exploitation or worse child p**n is so utterly laughable that the majority of TWTD are bound to agree with it. |  |
|  |
| Nirvana being sued 0n several counts on 11:10 - Aug 25 with 2088 views | itfctilidie |
I would imagine his parents would have received a sum of money for this at the time, i cant see there being any legs to this - saying that it is America |  | | |
| Nirvana being sued 0n several counts on 11:11 - Aug 25 with 2086 views | Swansea_Blue |
I can see the child pronography and sex worker claims getting thrown out straight away. Seems like a ridiculous accusation on the face of it. |  |
| |
| Nirvana being sued 0n several counts on 11:11 - Aug 25 with 2086 views | Dubtractor |
Bit of a p1ss take tbh, from someone who has clearly played on, and benefitted from, the fact he was the 'Nirvana Baby'. |  |
| |
| Nirvana being sued 0n several counts on 11:45 - Aug 25 with 1956 views | Fixed_It |
| Nirvana being sued 0n several counts on 11:11 - Aug 25 by Dubtractor |
Bit of a p1ss take tbh, from someone who has clearly played on, and benefitted from, the fact he was the 'Nirvana Baby'. |
Yeah - but what about the 'emotional distress'?! |  |
| |
| Nirvana being sued 0n several counts on 11:45 - Aug 25 with 1955 views | hype313 |
| Nirvana being sued 0n several counts on 11:10 - Aug 25 by itfctilidie |
I would imagine his parents would have received a sum of money for this at the time, i cant see there being any legs to this - saying that it is America |
His dad got $200 by all accounts. |  |
| |
| Nirvana being sued 0n several counts on 11:52 - Aug 25 with 1925 views | Herbivore |
Think a lawyer has seen a way to make a quick buck for himself and for the client and they've gone for it. Hard to see how he can square the alleged impact with some of his comments about the positive impact it's had on his life, and I think they're massively reaching in claiming exploitation and child pornography. |  |
| |
| Nirvana being sued 0n several counts on 11:55 - Aug 25 with 1911 views | ronnyd |
| Nirvana being sued 0n several counts on 11:10 - Aug 25 by itfctilidie |
I would imagine his parents would have received a sum of money for this at the time, i cant see there being any legs to this - saying that it is America |
Wonder if Kanye West's kids will sue him for changing his name to " Ye". Sorry no link. |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Nirvana being sued 0n several counts on 11:58 - Aug 25 with 1900 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Nirvana being sued 0n several counts on 11:09 - Aug 25 by chicoazul |
The idea that a picture on an album cover is child exploitation or worse child p**n is so utterly laughable that the majority of TWTD are bound to agree with it. |
I would think Ginger Baker's daughter has a far better case tbh. |  |
| |
| Nirvana being sued 0n several counts on 12:08 - Aug 25 with 1869 views | ArnoldMoorhen |
| Nirvana being sued 0n several counts on 11:52 - Aug 25 by Herbivore |
Think a lawyer has seen a way to make a quick buck for himself and for the client and they've gone for it. Hard to see how he can square the alleged impact with some of his comments about the positive impact it's had on his life, and I think they're massively reaching in claiming exploitation and child pornography. |
It's clearly exploitation, as the parents were paid a nominal fee ($200) for the photo shoot and as well as all the albums sold there were official posters and t shirts sold globally as well, which wouldn't have been discussed at the time, and it seems that there is no written contract detailing extended commercial use of the image.
It appears to me that the case has been pitched at a level where it is easier for the band and management to settle out of court than incur legal costs, and he gets what he feels is long overdue payment for having been turned into a commodity without his consent. | | | |
| Nirvana being sued 0n several counts on 12:27 - Aug 25 with 1818 views | Illinoisblue |
There’s no way that photo shoot happened without a release form being signed. |  |
| |
| Nirvana being sued 0n several counts on 13:31 - Aug 25 with 1668 views | leitrimblue |
Nevermind |  | | |
| Nirvana being sued 0n several counts on 13:36 - Aug 25 with 1651 views | MattinLondon |
| Nirvana being sued 0n several counts on 12:08 - Aug 25 by ArnoldMoorhen |
It's clearly exploitation, as the parents were paid a nominal fee ($200) for the photo shoot and as well as all the albums sold there were official posters and t shirts sold globally as well, which wouldn't have been discussed at the time, and it seems that there is no written contract detailing extended commercial use of the image.
It appears to me that the case has been pitched at a level where it is easier for the band and management to settle out of court than incur legal costs, and he gets what he feels is long overdue payment for having been turned into a commodity without his consent. |
But as an adult he’s consented to interviews and photo shoots about the original image. |  | | |
| Nirvana being sued 0n several counts on 13:46 - Aug 25 with 1616 views | ArnoldMoorhen |
| Nirvana being sued 0n several counts on 13:36 - Aug 25 by MattinLondon |
But as an adult he’s consented to interviews and photo shoots about the original image. |
Which is not relevant.
I can't believe that everyone is queueing up to defend the MegaCorp over the little guy here! | | | |
| Nirvana being sued 0n several counts on 13:48 - Aug 25 with 1609 views | Herbivore |
| Nirvana being sued 0n several counts on 12:08 - Aug 25 by ArnoldMoorhen |
It's clearly exploitation, as the parents were paid a nominal fee ($200) for the photo shoot and as well as all the albums sold there were official posters and t shirts sold globally as well, which wouldn't have been discussed at the time, and it seems that there is no written contract detailing extended commercial use of the image.
It appears to me that the case has been pitched at a level where it is easier for the band and management to settle out of court than incur legal costs, and he gets what he feels is long overdue payment for having been turned into a commodity without his consent. |
Your first paragraph is their submission, it will be interesting to see what the response of the other parties is to that submission.
I agree with your second paragraph though, he's not trying to claim millions and it might be easier for them to just chuck him a low six figure sum rather than have to pay for an expensive legal fight. | |
| |
| Nirvana being sued 0n several counts on 13:52 - Aug 25 with 1601 views | Cheltenham_Blue |
| Nirvana being sued 0n several counts on 12:08 - Aug 25 by ArnoldMoorhen |
It's clearly exploitation, as the parents were paid a nominal fee ($200) for the photo shoot and as well as all the albums sold there were official posters and t shirts sold globally as well, which wouldn't have been discussed at the time, and it seems that there is no written contract detailing extended commercial use of the image.
It appears to me that the case has been pitched at a level where it is easier for the band and management to settle out of court than incur legal costs, and he gets what he feels is long overdue payment for having been turned into a commodity without his consent. |
I'm not sure if you are being serious or not, but as a photographer, this is nonsense.
The parents knew this was for an album cover and accepted the fee, however nominal. That constitutes a licence for commercial use where non exists. Image usage can only ever be excluded on a written licence, a verbal agreement is entirely non binding and would allow the licencee to use the image worldwide in perpetuity.
Theres no exploitation here. The only people capable to give consent were his parents and they did at the time by taking a fee for the image, and they would at the time have been acting as his representatives.
I suspect his 'art' has dried up as he mentioned in the Guardian article and he needs the cash. [Post edited 25 Aug 2021 13:53]
|  |
| |
| Nirvana being sued 0n several counts on 13:55 - Aug 25 with 1580 views | IpswichToon |
| Nirvana being sued 0n several counts on 12:08 - Aug 25 by ArnoldMoorhen |
It's clearly exploitation, as the parents were paid a nominal fee ($200) for the photo shoot and as well as all the albums sold there were official posters and t shirts sold globally as well, which wouldn't have been discussed at the time, and it seems that there is no written contract detailing extended commercial use of the image.
It appears to me that the case has been pitched at a level where it is easier for the band and management to settle out of court than incur legal costs, and he gets what he feels is long overdue payment for having been turned into a commodity without his consent. |
So your argument towards it being 'exploitation' is that you presume the band, having paid the photographer for the rights to use this photo for their album cover, somehow didn't include the rights to then be able to use that album cover on t-shirts?
That isn't even the argument the lawyer is using, be equally as ridiculous. |  | | |
| Nirvana being sued 0n several counts on 14:09 - Aug 25 with 1542 views | ArnoldMoorhen |
| Nirvana being sued 0n several counts on 13:55 - Aug 25 by IpswichToon |
So your argument towards it being 'exploitation' is that you presume the band, having paid the photographer for the rights to use this photo for their album cover, somehow didn't include the rights to then be able to use that album cover on t-shirts?
That isn't even the argument the lawyer is using, be equally as ridiculous. |
No, the story as reported, is that their family friend, the photographer, asked if he could take photos of their baby for a band album cover, and paid them for it.
As reported, they didn't sign a release.
The photo was used for the album cover, but if the posters and t shirts weren't explicitly mentioned then they hadn't released the image rights for that purpose.
And, regardless of these legal arguments, there is no question that the baby's image was exploited, by his parents for not very much, by the photographer, by the band, by the record company and by their commercial partners.
I think it is telling that whereas in the past he was ok with it, but now, following Covid and lockdowns (if taken at face value) his comments about being freaked out at baseball games reveal a new anxiety. | | | |
| Nirvana being sued 0n several counts on 14:20 - Aug 25 with 1508 views | SouperJim |
Chancer.
"Elden has recreated the album cover several times as a teenager and adult - always wearing swimming trunks - to mark Nevermind's 10th, 20th and 25th anniversaries."
Not exactly the actions of someone suffering from extreme and permanent emotional distress. I guess it'll come down to whether the band had the right to use the image. |  |
| |
| Nirvana being sued 0n several counts on 14:20 - Aug 25 with 1509 views | Cheltenham_Blue |
| Nirvana being sued 0n several counts on 14:09 - Aug 25 by ArnoldMoorhen |
No, the story as reported, is that their family friend, the photographer, asked if he could take photos of their baby for a band album cover, and paid them for it.
As reported, they didn't sign a release.
The photo was used for the album cover, but if the posters and t shirts weren't explicitly mentioned then they hadn't released the image rights for that purpose.
And, regardless of these legal arguments, there is no question that the baby's image was exploited, by his parents for not very much, by the photographer, by the band, by the record company and by their commercial partners.
I think it is telling that whereas in the past he was ok with it, but now, following Covid and lockdowns (if taken at face value) his comments about being freaked out at baseball games reveal a new anxiety. |
Taking the payment is an implied release in the absence of a licence.
Before you come back again, my career is very specifically around photographic law, licences and releases I'm not making this stuff up. | |
| |
| Nirvana being sued 0n several counts on 14:29 - Aug 25 with 1474 views | ArnoldMoorhen |
| Nirvana being sued 0n several counts on 14:20 - Aug 25 by Cheltenham_Blue |
Taking the payment is an implied release in the absence of a licence.
Before you come back again, my career is very specifically around photographic law, licences and releases I'm not making this stuff up. |
I'm asking this as a question, not "coming back":
In your professional opinion, in the absence of anything in writing, if the photographer gained agreement for a specific use of a child's image in exchange for a fee, is that image then allowed to be used for other purposes without further recompense?
Is there room there for legal challenge? | | | |
| Nirvana being sued 0n several counts on 14:40 - Aug 25 with 1443 views | bluesince84 |
Ironically a kid chasing after money… funny how irony works …. | | | |
| Nirvana being sued 0n several counts on 14:46 - Aug 25 with 1430 views | Mullet |
| Nirvana being sued 0n several counts on 11:11 - Aug 25 by Dubtractor |
Bit of a p1ss take tbh, from someone who has clearly played on, and benefitted from, the fact he was the 'Nirvana Baby'. |
Makes the message of the photo even more apt I guess |  |
| |
| Nirvana being sued 0n several counts on 14:47 - Aug 25 with 1429 views | JammyDodgerrr |
Can't see it getting anywhere especially when you see interviews from a few years ago when he is saying how beneficial it's been for his life. |  |
| |
| Nirvana being sued 0n several counts on 14:59 - Aug 25 with 1408 views | Cheltenham_Blue |
| Nirvana being sued 0n several counts on 14:29 - Aug 25 by ArnoldMoorhen |
I'm asking this as a question, not "coming back":
In your professional opinion, in the absence of anything in writing, if the photographer gained agreement for a specific use of a child's image in exchange for a fee, is that image then allowed to be used for other purposes without further recompense?
Is there room there for legal challenge? |
No, there's no room for a legal challenge at all and no recompense for further usage without being able to produce a licence.
The original owner of the image, in this case his parents, upon acceptance of a fee for a commercial usage of that image, (the Nevermind cover), will be deemed to have accepted the standard terms for this usage. Which is commercial use only, worldwide in perpetuity.
If they had wanted to exclude certain usages under a commercial use then they should have issued the band with a licence to use the image, which specifically excluded usage on marketing or promotional materials with the exception of the original agreed use.
Image uses are normally time limited, in a commercial background this is normally limited to two years, but can occasionally be three years, upon expiration of the limited period a further licence, (and payment), is required.
The internet has ruined peoples perception of how images can and cannot be used, I recovered around £6000 in 2020 chasing unpaid uses of my images.
In this case, the parents were badly advised and accepted a fee well below its value, but the acceptance of a fee implies an acceptance of the standard licence, which is world-wide, unlimited, in perpetuity. Theres no exploitation, just bad decisions.
For interest, at agreed rates, with unlimited usage added, and a 10 year licence to use the image with $200 being their base rate. that image would be worth around $17,000 if a band wanted to buy it now.
For a 'in perpetuity' usage you can triple that - $51,000 [Post edited 25 Aug 2021 15:01]
| |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
