4 ms·
It is a naked picture of a baby clearly used to provoke and advertise. I'm OK with naked baby photos being taken and kept by parents but I don't think it's OK t
by spoonjim 5y ago
It is a naked picture of a baby clearly used to provoke and advertise. I'm OK with naked baby photos being taken and kept by parents but I don't think it's OK to use a child's naked photo as one of the iconic commercial photos of a generation. I do not think it is child pornography but I think that it is a misuse of a baby's naked photo in a way that a parent should not be able to consent to on behalf of the child.
- burnished 5y agoI feel like part of the problem is that your position is changing based on outcome, right, like it became a problem after the fact when it became a commercial hit.
- spoonjim 5y agoI don’t think naked baby photos should be commercially licensable at all.
- sokoloff 5y agoNot even for biology/medical textbooks or forensics training content or other educational purposes from commercial publishers? I don’t see naked as equaling sexualized and I don’t see the Nirvana cover as the latter either, but I definitely can’t see a total ban on pictures in commercially-sold material being workable.
- nate_meurer 5y agoWhat is your personal threshold for "naked"? Completely naked? Diapers? Nipples showing?
- burnished 5y agoIf your position is something along the lines of, babies cant consent, young children cant consent, why dont we just live in a world where we dont include them in media so we dont have people growing up having to figure out how they feel about how they were presented to the world... sure, that would be a pretty consistent world view. If its just that you think a naked baby is pornographic then I guess its an entirely different conversation. Its not really clear what motivates your statement here though.