|
I don't know. I think the "child pornography" angle is particularly a puzzling path to go down (as that picture couldn't be remotely construed as being sexualized) but you know, let's say your parents signed you up and got paid $500 to use a then-new picture of you at 5 years old for a movie poster for a movie that goes on to make 3 billion. Even 20 years later, the same producers are still using that movie poster for blu-ray covers, re-releases, etc., and still "making money" off of it. Meanwhile, your parents only got $500 when you were a kid and you got $0, and still get $0.
I'm just saying there might be something to that.
|