FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to The Lounge

Nevermind

Jump to newest
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

So the iconic baby featured on the Nirvana "Nevermind" album cover is suing the band for sexual exploitation. Any thoughts?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

He must have ran out of money

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

All offended all of a sudden. Hmmmmmm

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ed VoluptaWoman
over a year ago

Wirral.


"So the iconic baby featured on the Nirvana "Nevermind" album cover is suing the band for sexual exploitation. Any thoughts? "

That people will sue at the drop of a hat, these days

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *aysOfOurLivesCouple
over a year ago

Chigwell

Apparently he didn’t make any money from that photo (nor did his parents give permission for its use) so he does have a point on claiming royalties I guess. As for the actual offence he’s claiming for… under us law, no offence occurred because he was too young for it to count (rediculous).

However, he has since made a number of amici “recreations” prior to making a complaint about the original which leads me to think he was perfectly happy with the original and that this is more of an opportunistic money-grab than genuine attempt to “clean these dirty streets” of this kind of imagery.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *aysOfOurLivesCouple
over a year ago

Chigwell

^ *anniversary recreations

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ed VoluptaWoman
over a year ago

Wirral.


"Apparently he didn’t make any money from that photo (nor did his parents give permission for its use) so he does have a point on claiming royalties I guess. As for the actual offence he’s claiming for… under us law, no offence occurred because he was too young for it to count (rediculous).

However, he has since made a number of amici “recreations” prior to making a complaint about the original which leads me to think he was perfectly happy with the original and that this is more of an opportunistic money-grab than genuine attempt to “clean these dirty streets” of this kind of imagery. "

But how does the "sexual exploitation" element come into it? Is it just cos it's a naked baby? I'm probably being very naive here, aren't I?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *yronMan
over a year ago

grangemouth


"Apparently he didn’t make any money from that photo (nor did his parents give permission for its use) so he does have a point on claiming royalties I guess. As for the actual offence he’s claiming for… under us law, no offence occurred because he was too young for it to count (rediculous).

However, he has since made a number of amici “recreations” prior to making a complaint about the original which leads me to think he was perfectly happy with the original and that this is more of an opportunistic money-grab than genuine attempt to “clean these dirty streets” of this kind of imagery.

But how does the "sexual exploitation" element come into it? Is it just cos it's a naked baby? I'm probably being very naive here, aren't I? "

That's basically it. His image was used and now he's suing, saying that he didn't give permission. His parents did, however and he should take it up with them.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Apparently he didn’t make any money from that photo (nor did his parents give permission for its use) so he does have a point on claiming royalties I guess. As for the actual offence he’s claiming for… under us law, no offence occurred because he was too young for it to count (rediculous).

However, he has since made a number of amici “recreations” prior to making a complaint about the original which leads me to think he was perfectly happy with the original and that this is more of an opportunistic money-grab than genuine attempt to “clean these dirty streets” of this kind of imagery.

But how does the "sexual exploitation" element come into it? Is it just cos it's a naked baby? I'm probably being very naive here, aren't I?

That's basically it. His image was used and now he's suing, saying that he didn't give permission. His parents did, however and he should take it up with them.

"

Youd think so, right?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *yronMan
over a year ago

grangemouth


"Apparently he didn’t make any money from that photo (nor did his parents give permission for its use) so he does have a point on claiming royalties I guess. As for the actual offence he’s claiming for… under us law, no offence occurred because he was too young for it to count (rediculous).

However, he has since made a number of amici “recreations” prior to making a complaint about the original which leads me to think he was perfectly happy with the original and that this is more of an opportunistic money-grab than genuine attempt to “clean these dirty streets” of this kind of imagery.

But how does the "sexual exploitation" element come into it? Is it just cos it's a naked baby? I'm probably being very naive here, aren't I?

That's basically it. His image was used and now he's suing, saying that he didn't give permission. His parents did, however and he should take it up with them.

Youd think so, right? "

But it gets him more fame and he can make more money out of recreating the pose, so.....

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

I've always found it "icky" when you see births in films and TV shows and someone has allowed their newborn baby to be naked and covered in goo for the realism.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *r.SJMan
over a year ago

Wellingborough

It knows no bounds...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

I always thought the image was saying "we are born chasing money" as the band had switched labels from the independent "Sub-pop" to "Geffen" for a vast sum of money.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *yronMan
over a year ago

grangemouth


"I've always found it "icky" when you see births in films and TV shows and someone has allowed their newborn baby to be naked and covered in goo for the realism. "

I'm like that about all medical procedures on TV: it's intensely private and stuff can go wrong very quickly. It's a moment in people's lives that most would like to forget, not have coming up on YouTube for years to come.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Apparently he didn’t make any money from that photo (nor did his parents give permission for its use) so he does have a point on claiming royalties I guess. As for the actual offence he’s claiming for… under us law, no offence occurred because he was too young for it to count (rediculous).

However, he has since made a number of amici “recreations” prior to making a complaint about the original which leads me to think he was perfectly happy with the original and that this is more of an opportunistic money-grab than genuine attempt to “clean these dirty streets” of this kind of imagery.

But how does the "sexual exploitation" element come into it? Is it just cos it's a naked baby? I'm probably being very naive here, aren't I? "

I would assume its the naked thing.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top