> I think its wrong to put photos of people who cannot (or have not) agreed in the public, especially photos of children (...) The article mentions that the pl

> I think its wrong to put photos of people who cannot (or have not) agreed in the public, especially photos of children (...) The article mentions that the plaintiff's parents were paid $200 by a photographer who was a friend of the family to have a photoshoot,and go as far as claiming that they were unaware of the whole pro photoshoot they held at the pool and were paid $200 to join was a photoshoot. They also state that the record company even gave the plaintiff's family a commemorative record and a teddy bear a couple of months after the album release. From this newspiece alone, and ignoring the fact that the plaintiff is known for having been milking his role in Nirvana's album cover since ever, it's hard to believe that a) the plaintiff and his whole family were not fully aware they willingly participated in a commercial photoshoot for which they were paid for, b) the plaintiff had an epiphany and change of heart regarding the event and suddenly felt he was a victim.