Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Browncoat" data-source="post: 39375" data-attributes="member: 1061">Their daughter works for one of top modeling agencies in the world, and she's a walking paycheck.&nbsp; Generally speaking, it would be a multi-step approval: a rep from the ad company would be the ultimate deciding factor, but the photog, parents, modeling agency, and even the model herself would've been involved in the decision-making process.&nbsp; The parents have included the photographer in their lawsuit because he owns the rights to the photos.&nbsp; They are ticked that this image was put on a t-shirt and sold.&nbsp; Perhaps they were expecting billboards and magazine spreads.&nbsp; As for the child pornography nature of this photo, I personally don't see it.&nbsp; Yes, this photo is suggestive and in bad taste.&nbsp; Yes, the intent was to convey sexuality, especially if you look at the photographer's portfolio and other work.&nbsp; But more than anything else, the child porn label was slapped on this as a PR stunt.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Browncoat, post: 39375, member: 1061"] Their daughter works for one of top modeling agencies in the world, and she's a walking paycheck. Generally speaking, it would be a multi-step approval: a rep from the ad company would be the ultimate deciding factor, but the photog, parents, modeling agency, and even the model herself would've been involved in the decision-making process. The parents have included the photographer in their lawsuit because he owns the rights to the photos. They are ticked that this image was put on a t-shirt and sold. Perhaps they were expecting billboards and magazine spreads. As for the child pornography nature of this photo, I personally don't see it. Yes, this photo is suggestive and in bad taste. Yes, the intent was to convey sexuality, especially if you look at the photographer's portfolio and other work. But more than anything else, the child porn label was slapped on this as a PR stunt. [/QUOTE]

Verification