Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:1) Bad parents (to allow the shot)
2) Lax management on the part of the record company. Releases are required for all commercial photos (Legal knows better).
Why do you assume there’s no release?
If there was a release, the parents would have given permission to allow their child’s naked image to be used for commercial purposes and would have agreed to waive any claims on profits, etc. children can’t sign legal contracts so the parents have the authority to sign for them. P
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:If they had slapped a photo of a basket of strawberries on the album cover, the album still would have been a hit.
The cover of the album has nothing to do with the success of the music.
He (and his family) have used this photo as a way of making themselves more than they are -- he was a baby model, no different than the Gerber baby.
Honestly, I've seen that cover a million times and never thought or give consideration to the fact there's a penis on it. It's a BABY.
No one would even know it's him except for the fact he's used it as his calling card all of his life -- even to the point of tattooing the name of the album on his chest.
Maybe he just needs to grow up and get a life.
This. The man has CHOSEN to draw attention to it being him on the cover, going to the media for years, doing replications of it as an adult, and of course the giant tattoo - and clearly trying to profit off of it himself years later.
I've never been a fan of the album cover, but the only people that exploited him were his parents.
I think it would be a kind gesture to give him 100k as a gift, maybe, since the album has been so popular (because of the music, not the cover). But he isn't owed it by any means.
All of this.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:1) Bad parents (to allow the shot)
2) Lax management on the part of the record company. Releases are required for all commercial photos (Legal knows better).
Why do you assume there’s no release?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:If they had slapped a photo of a basket of strawberries on the album cover, the album still would have been a hit.
The cover of the album has nothing to do with the success of the music.
He (and his family) have used this photo as a way of making themselves more than they are -- he was a baby model, no different than the Gerber baby.
Honestly, I've seen that cover a million times and never thought or give consideration to the fact there's a penis on it. It's a BABY.
No one would even know it's him except for the fact he's used it as his calling card all of his life -- even to the point of tattooing the name of the album on his chest.
Maybe he just needs to grow up and get a life.
This. The man has CHOSEN to draw attention to it being him on the cover, going to the media for years, doing replications of it as an adult, and of course the giant tattoo - and clearly trying to profit off of it himself years later.
I've never been a fan of the album cover, but the only people that exploited him were his parents.
I think it would be a kind gesture to give him 100k as a gift, maybe, since the album has been so popular (because of the music, not the cover). But he isn't owed it by any means.
Anonymous wrote:You wouldn’t know it was him unless he told you, and I bet he tells everyone. Loser.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:1) Bad parents (to allow the shot)
2) Lax management on the part of the record company. Releases are required for all commercial photos (Legal knows better).
Why do you assume there’s no release?
Anonymous wrote:Just want to say, I am most disturbed by the fact that they threw the babies in the pool. I know they were right there, but it only takes a minute to aspirate water and drown.
I also get where he is coming from- a lot of people made money from the album, never him, and he didn’t have any say in the matter. The fact that he recreated the photo and talked about it a lot doesn’t negate that for me- it seems like it loomed large in his life and was something that he struggled to process. I dunno if he has a legal case- probably depends on what, if anything, his parents signed - but I sympathize and I hope they throw him some cash.
Anonymous wrote:1) Bad parents (to allow the shot)
2) Lax management on the part of the record company. Releases are required for all commercial photos (Legal knows better).