7 ms·

At the same time he never consented to a nude image of himself being plastered on one of the most popular albums ever made. Even if it is a cash grab I think he

At the same time he never consented to a nude image of himself being plastered on one of the most popular albums ever made. Even if it is a cash grab I think he's got a point.

Zelphyr 5y ago
His parents consented for him. If he wants to sue anyone, he can try going after them. I think he'll get about the same outcome as this lawsuit, though.
- corndoge 5y ago
  I think that the idea that parents can post nude pictures of you without your consent is bullshit, which was a subtext of my op.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
    Well, if you have kids, especially newborns, you do take and send a whole lot of pictures. That alone suggests Apple CSAM thing will have a busy time trying to figure out which is CP and which is just a parent sharing their own kid pictures. Naturally, it does not help that we now effectively have no privacy.
    - ghaff 5y ago
      You're probably getting downvoted because Apple CSAM does not look at a photo in isolation and "decide" whether it crosses the line into child pornography or not. It's comparing hashes to a child porn database as I understand it.
    - jonplackett 5y ago
      The reason you're getting down voted, I would guess, is that that is not the way CSAM scanning works. Apple have a list of photos they know are CSAM, or rather hashes of them, and the look for those and only those on your device. They also introduced another thing that scans your kid's incoming and outgoing messages for what look like dodgy photos - that does look at general photo content (rather than compare to a list) which has been the source of a lot of the confusion. (FWIW I still think the CSAM scanning is an incredibly bad idea and horribly slippery slope to start sliding on.)
      - A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
        I don't mind. I do find the reaction interesting though. In a practical sense, they could have called it anything and since they announced it in the same breath, my mental map keeps it under the same umbrella. It is not on me that Apple communicates poorly. But lets get past that. The 'dodgy photos' functionality ( because that was indeed what I was referring to vs hash db ) is where it is going to get tricky. I am sure there will be parents, who will absolutely love it. Just as I am sure that there will be ones who think this will not end well.
      - nullc 5y ago
        > Apple have a list of photos they know are CSAM, or rather hashes of them Technically, that government agencies claim are CSAM and the "hash" is highly vulnerable to preimage attacks: I can take random unrelated photos and make them match other hashes, https://github.com/AsuharietYgvar/AppleNeuralHash2ONNX/issues/1#issuecomment-903094036 https://github.com/AsuharietYgvar/AppleNeuralHash2ONNX/issue... This means people can take child porn images and modify them so they match targeted innocent images, and take innocent images and modify them so they match child porn.
  - S_A_P 5y ago
    That is a whole other ball of wax. Age of consent is a thing. As a parent I wouldn’t choose to let my child be part of that sort of photo. I also don’t think his parents had any malice in putting Spencer in that photo. Until recently he seemed completely ok with drawing attention to the photo by recreating it multiple times and giving interviews. Let’s not pretend that he would be suing Nirvana if that album sold 5000 copies either.
    - Freak_NL 5y ago
      That's what makes this so highly probable that it is just a vulgar money grab. The image was recreated when he was 10, and again in 2016 (!).
- hackersword 5y ago
  >Elden says his parents never signed a release authorising the use of his image on the album.
  - jonplackett 5y ago
    If that's true, then why isn't he pursuing that as an argument rather than claiming it's child porn?
    - kevingadd 5y ago
      He can pursue multiple issues in a single lawsuit, it's not weird for some but not all of the claims in a case to be dismissed
- TuringNYC 5y ago
  >> His parents consented for him. According to the article, there was informal consent but no signed release. I'm was pretty surprised to hear that -- isn't obtaining releases pretty standard for large corporations?
  - Zelphyr 5y ago
    I think things like that were handled quite a bit more loosely back then. If memory serves, the cover of one of the Deftones albums (the one with the girl in the bathing suit I believe?) came from a random shot taken at a party and the subject didn't even know about it until the album was released.
    - cherrycherry98 5y ago
      Same situation Matchbox 20's Yourself or Someone Like You, one of the most popular albums of the 90s. The guy on the cover apparently never consented to his photo being used and went after them years later.
- Normille 5y ago
  He needs to sue his parents for getting such a shit deal for use of the photo, in the first place. I'll bet if, instead, they'd negotiated a penny for every copy of the album sold, he would be overjoyed that 'everyone in the world' had seen his chipolata.
  - void_mint 5y ago
    Is 300k worth that much to you?
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - nipponese 5y ago
    I would love to business with the record exec who decided it had to be THAT baby and agreed to pay royalties for such a generic looking baby.
lifty 5y ago
The consent was given by his legal parent. So he should sue them not Nirvana.
- corndoge 5y ago
  Perhaps he should. Nirvana has more money though and one must operate within the incentive structure of the US legal system.
  - lifty 5y ago
    I think I understand the motivation. Sad state of affairs. We are on our way to total loss of trust in societal institutions, and trying to take full advantage of the incentive structure, without any other considerations. In other words, we are getting to the "fuck it!" phase of the process.
- hackersword 5y ago
  Don't know if it is true or not, or how affects claim ... but he claims >Elden says his parents never signed a release authorising the use of his image on the album.
  - lazyasciiart 5y ago
    A written signed document is not the only way to make a legal agreement, it's just the most easily referenced and proven one. The parents consented to letting a professional photographer take photos of their child to use in commercial work, and nobody appears to dispute that.
- balls187 5y ago
  What would he sue them for?
  - darkmarmot 5y ago
    money?
ghaff 5y ago
Given that it was legal content and his parents consented, why is it any different from "stage mothers" and others consenting to (and indeed pushing) their children into any number of ads, photo shoots, TV, film, etc.? Otherwise any adult who felt embarrassment over their appearance in media as a minor could sue and parental consent to do those activities has no meaning. ADDED: And if your response is that "But he was nude" then your beef is with the law that didn't make this illegal. There are of course borderline cases. See Brooke Shields in "Pretty Baby" for example which caused quite a bit of controversy at the time. (And, indeed, as I wrote elsewhere, I'm pretty sure no major record label would go near this cover with a 100 foot pole today not because it would likely be illegal but because it would be a lightning rod.)
- canadianfella 5y ago
  > Otherwise any adult who felt embarrassment over their appearance in media as a minor could su Why would that be a bad thing?
- hackersword 5y ago
  >Elden says his parents never signed a release authorising the use of his image on the album.
  - ghaff 5y ago
    But his parents were apparently paid.
    - TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
      That doesn't mean there was consent and model release paperwork. The record company should (only slightly ironically) keep records. If they exist this case is going nowhere. If they don't - that might get interesting.
      - patrickthebold 5y ago
        One would think there'd be some kind of implied consent. It's hard to imagine a situation where a record company ends up with naked pictures of someones kid, the parent gets paid, and the parent is genuinely not ok with the pics appearing on an album cover. I agree it's more interesting if there's no consent form, but I still would hope the court would side with the record company.
burnished 5y ago
Is it really an image of "himself" though? Being a baby is more like a larval form, there isn't really a connection for an audience to make between a photo of a newborn and a photo of an adult. What I'm trying to get at is usually when you say something like "nude image of himself" we are used to thinking that the image is an identifying one. But a baby picture isn't identifying in the same way, even to yourself, until some one informs you of the connection. It feels like a different circumstance, you know?
shams93 5y ago
If they didn't have a signed release then they're basically using this without permission which is a civil violation.

At the same time he never consented to a nude image of himself being plastered on one of the most popular albums ever made. Even if it is a cash grab I think he's got a point.

Zelphyr 5y ago

His parents consented for him. If he wants to sue anyone, he can try going after them. I think he'll get about the same outcome as this lawsuit, though.

corndoge 5y ago
I think that the idea that parents can post nude pictures of you without your consent is bullshit, which was a subtext of my op.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
  Well, if you have kids, especially newborns, you do take and send a whole lot of pictures. That alone suggests Apple CSAM thing will have a busy time trying to figure out which is CP and which is just a parent sharing their own kid pictures. Naturally, it does not help that we now effectively have no privacy.
  - ghaff 5y ago
    You're probably getting downvoted because Apple CSAM does not look at a photo in isolation and "decide" whether it crosses the line into child pornography or not. It's comparing hashes to a child porn database as I understand it.
  - jonplackett 5y ago
    The reason you're getting down voted, I would guess, is that that is not the way CSAM scanning works. Apple have a list of photos they know are CSAM, or rather hashes of them, and the look for those and only those on your device. They also introduced another thing that scans your kid's incoming and outgoing messages for what look like dodgy photos - that does look at general photo content (rather than compare to a list) which has been the source of a lot of the confusion. (FWIW I still think the CSAM scanning is an incredibly bad idea and horribly slippery slope to start sliding on.)
    - A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
      I don't mind. I do find the reaction interesting though. In a practical sense, they could have called it anything and since they announced it in the same breath, my mental map keeps it under the same umbrella. It is not on me that Apple communicates poorly. But lets get past that. The 'dodgy photos' functionality ( because that was indeed what I was referring to vs hash db ) is where it is going to get tricky. I am sure there will be parents, who will absolutely love it. Just as I am sure that there will be ones who think this will not end well.
    - nullc 5y ago
      > Apple have a list of photos they know are CSAM, or rather hashes of them Technically, that government agencies claim are CSAM and the "hash" is highly vulnerable to preimage attacks: I can take random unrelated photos and make them match other hashes, https://github.com/AsuharietYgvar/AppleNeuralHash2ONNX/issues/1#issuecomment-903094036 https://github.com/AsuharietYgvar/AppleNeuralHash2ONNX/issue... This means people can take child porn images and modify them so they match targeted innocent images, and take innocent images and modify them so they match child porn.
- S_A_P 5y ago
  That is a whole other ball of wax. Age of consent is a thing. As a parent I wouldn’t choose to let my child be part of that sort of photo. I also don’t think his parents had any malice in putting Spencer in that photo. Until recently he seemed completely ok with drawing attention to the photo by recreating it multiple times and giving interviews. Let’s not pretend that he would be suing Nirvana if that album sold 5000 copies either.
  - Freak_NL 5y ago
    That's what makes this so highly probable that it is just a vulgar money grab. The image was recreated when he was 10, and again in 2016 (!).
hackersword 5y ago
>Elden says his parents never signed a release authorising the use of his image on the album.
- jonplackett 5y ago
  If that's true, then why isn't he pursuing that as an argument rather than claiming it's child porn?
  - kevingadd 5y ago
    He can pursue multiple issues in a single lawsuit, it's not weird for some but not all of the claims in a case to be dismissed
TuringNYC 5y ago
>> His parents consented for him. According to the article, there was informal consent but no signed release. I'm was pretty surprised to hear that -- isn't obtaining releases pretty standard for large corporations?
- Zelphyr 5y ago
  I think things like that were handled quite a bit more loosely back then. If memory serves, the cover of one of the Deftones albums (the one with the girl in the bathing suit I believe?) came from a random shot taken at a party and the subject didn't even know about it until the album was released.
  - cherrycherry98 5y ago
    Same situation Matchbox 20's Yourself or Someone Like You, one of the most popular albums of the 90s. The guy on the cover apparently never consented to his photo being used and went after them years later.
Normille 5y ago
He needs to sue his parents for getting such a shit deal for use of the photo, in the first place. I'll bet if, instead, they'd negotiated a penny for every copy of the album sold, he would be overjoyed that 'everyone in the world' had seen his chipolata.
- void_mint 5y ago
  Is 300k worth that much to you?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- nipponese 5y ago
  I would love to business with the record exec who decided it had to be THAT baby and agreed to pay royalties for such a generic looking baby.

lifty 5y ago

The consent was given by his legal parent. So he should sue them not Nirvana.

corndoge 5y ago
Perhaps he should. Nirvana has more money though and one must operate within the incentive structure of the US legal system.
- lifty 5y ago
  I think I understand the motivation. Sad state of affairs. We are on our way to total loss of trust in societal institutions, and trying to take full advantage of the incentive structure, without any other considerations. In other words, we are getting to the "fuck it!" phase of the process.
hackersword 5y ago
Don't know if it is true or not, or how affects claim ... but he claims >Elden says his parents never signed a release authorising the use of his image on the album.
- lazyasciiart 5y ago
  A written signed document is not the only way to make a legal agreement, it's just the most easily referenced and proven one. The parents consented to letting a professional photographer take photos of their child to use in commercial work, and nobody appears to dispute that.
balls187 5y ago
What would he sue them for?
- darkmarmot 5y ago
  money?

ghaff 5y ago

Given that it was legal content and his parents consented, why is it any different from "stage mothers" and others consenting to (and indeed pushing) their children into any number of ads, photo shoots, TV, film, etc.? Otherwise any adult who felt embarrassment over their appearance in media as a minor could sue and parental consent to do those activities has no meaning. ADDED: And if your response is that "But he was nude" then your beef is with the law that didn't make this illegal. There are of course borderline cases. See Brooke Shields in "Pretty Baby" for example which caused quite a bit of controversy at the time. (And, indeed, as I wrote elsewhere, I'm pretty sure no major record label would go near this cover with a 100 foot pole today not because it would likely be illegal but because it would be a lightning rod.)

canadianfella 5y ago
> Otherwise any adult who felt embarrassment over their appearance in media as a minor could su Why would that be a bad thing?
hackersword 5y ago
>Elden says his parents never signed a release authorising the use of his image on the album.
- ghaff 5y ago
  But his parents were apparently paid.
  - TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
    That doesn't mean there was consent and model release paperwork. The record company should (only slightly ironically) keep records. If they exist this case is going nowhere. If they don't - that might get interesting.
    - patrickthebold 5y ago
      One would think there'd be some kind of implied consent. It's hard to imagine a situation where a record company ends up with naked pictures of someones kid, the parent gets paid, and the parent is genuinely not ok with the pics appearing on an album cover. I agree it's more interesting if there's no consent form, but I still would hope the court would side with the record company.

burnished 5y ago

Is it really an image of "himself" though? Being a baby is more like a larval form, there isn't really a connection for an audience to make between a photo of a newborn and a photo of an adult. What I'm trying to get at is usually when you say something like "nude image of himself" we are used to thinking that the image is an identifying one. But a baby picture isn't identifying in the same way, even to yourself, until some one informs you of the connection. It feels like a different circumstance, you know?

shams93 5y ago

If they didn't have a signed release then they're basically using this without permission which is a civil violation.