4 ms·
The consent was given by his legal parent. So he should sue them not Nirvana.
by lifty 5y ago
The consent was given by his legal parent. So he should sue them not Nirvana.
- corndoge 5y agoPerhaps he should. Nirvana has more money though and one must operate within the incentive structure of the US legal system.
- lifty 5y agoI 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 agoDon'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 agoA 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 agoWhat would he sue them for?
- darkmarmot 5y agomoney?
- balls187 5y agoHah. Yeah. Sorry I meant, what would be the legal basis for the suit?
- Bedon292 5y agoThe same argument: He didn't consent to them allowing Nirvana to use the photo. Nirvana should be covered by his parents giving their consent, since they was his legal guardian. If he doesn't think that consent should have been given he needs to go after the people who gave it. But I don't think that case would go very far either.