The article says she controls the Cobain estate.
It does look that way.
Yes, he didn’t make any money off the photo. But that’s how these things work. Others were photographed that same day and they also, presumably, only got $200.
Yep, the irony is pretty strong here.
Based on the Guardian article I think it’s entirely possible he’s spent way too much time thinking about this picture and has convinced himself its child pornography. But it could also be that he’s spent way too much thinking about how famous the picture is and how little he’s gained from it and just came up with the child porn angle to “get his”.
It’s also possible it wasn’t his idea, but the lawyer’s.
Yes, but the lawyer couldn’t proceed without his cooperation.
Countersuit for copyright violation?
Yes, of course. But if the lawyer came to him and said, “hey, I think we could get a good chunk of change by filing a lawsuit here” then I blame him a good deal less than if he came up with the idea and sought out the lawyer.
That’s a distinction without a difference, in my opinion.
I will say this – we, by which I mean American society, have become loony about pictures of naked little children. I remember plenty of stories, in the pre-digital days, about some parents taking perfectly innocent pics of their kids to be developed at those fast development kiosks, and getting the police called on them.
Thank god for digital pics. I have a bunch of nice ones of my little children with no clothes on. They’re cute. And I’m not a pornographer. I’d happily let them play naked (or would have, when they were really little) in the water park (it’s great – lots of sprinklers, and water flowing through things and all kinds of stuff) in our local city park, as would most of the parents I know. But we can’t do that, obviously.*
* And there’s a group that uses that park, and that facility, on Sundays that has strong opinions about “modest” dress for women (and “women” apparently includes two- and three-year old girls, for them), and can get vociferous about them, and try to restrict entrance for girls they deem immodestly dressed. They’re a huge pain in the ass.
ETA: Afterthought –
As a parent, my first thought on seeing that pic (I’m not actually familiar with the music, or that album cover) is “the parents put the baby in the pool without swimmie diapers? What’s wrong with them?”
Lawyers don’t typically sit around thinking of possible lawsuits and then approach a client with the idea. Nearly 100% of the time the client seeks out a lawyer and proposes a lawsuit of some kind. (not that there’s anything wrong with that. It’s entirely proper to seek out a lawyer if you were hurt in a car crash or fired for illegal reasons)
This guy almost certainly went to a lawyer with his grievance, which may have been quite general initially (“I would like to explore ways to get some money out of this iconic photo that I was in as a baby.”) I don’t understand the criticism that his is a “money grab.” If he’s entitled to money, then he’ll prevail. If not, he won’t. That’s how it works.
If it will cost less to pay him off than to fight the claim, then he’ll prevail. That’s how it works.
I’ve spent the last 34 years filing, trying, and settling lawsuits. That’s sometimes how it works.
Nah. How it often works is you try to browbeat the other party into settling in order to save themselves a potential loss, bad press, etc. Who is “right” has very little to do with it.
I’m fascinated by lay people’s misconceptions of the American legal system. Maybe other lawyers are better at this than I am, but I have never successfully browbeat another party into settling to avoid bad press, the cost of defense, etc.
While my reaction to the suit is broadly in line with the thread consensus, I’d be hesitant to point to his participation in recreations of the photo as at odds with his claim that he believes he was sexually exploited. The article says that he’s expressed deeply mixed feelings about the photo shoot and whether he was exploited. And the fact is that many victims refuse to consider themselves as having been exploited, and may even embrace the exploitation as a way for them to exercise “ownership” over an incident they did not consent to. It can often be the case that they only much later come to understand what happened to them as improper. Michael Jackson’s victims are a case in point.
Again, not saying that’s the case here and this may well be a cynical money grab. And legally I’m not sure that it matters how Elden now views the photo shoot. But I would not take “he didn’t have a problem with it before” necessarily as evidence impugning his motives.
At tourist areas in Thailand, you can buy postcards showing happy little hilltribe children running gleefully naked around their village. The wife was going to send a couple to friends and relatives back here stateside. The cards do look cute, they’re perfectly innocent, but I told her it would probably not be a good idea for fear of being popped for child pornography the next time we entered the US.
It does seem that in this case, with each individual defendant being sued for “at least $150,000” (including a band member who had left the group before it even happened), it would be cheaper for each to settle than to fight it. (I assume their lawyers bill upwards of $1000/hr.)
There’s likely insurance involved. Insurance companies frequently draw a line in the sand when they think there is no liability. And, no, they usually don’t pay the defense attorneys $1,000 per hour. They know what would happen if they started paying nuisance value settlements to get rid of frivolous cases. They have even taken to fighting to the death valid cases in an effort to discourage the legitimate claims. It is not unusual to see an insurance company spend $300,000 to $500,000 to defend a case that could have been settled for $250,000. You might say that doesn’t make much economic sense, but if you’re the lawyer with the next $250,000 case, you might think twice about going to war with these guys, even with a good case. Maybe you’d advise your client take $100,000 and call it a fair settlement. Like the Taliban, insurance companies are playing the long game.
?? The attorneys we use through work bill more than that. (Business/corp law, patent, etc. ) Their defense attorneys receive less than that?
Yes, big insurance companies limit what their attorneys can charge (the really high brow firms won’t do that kind of work). And they scrutinize the bills like crazy, disallowing a lot of things lawyers would expect to get paid for. There are actually third party vendors who do that for a fee. (“0.3 hours for reviewing that letter, no way. That’s 0.1 at most.”) Big firm lawyers working for a company could easily charge $600 to $1,000 per hour. If your claim is being defended by an attorney hired by the insurer, it’s likely to be a lot less.