What would you think if the cover had been the same except for his genitals had been airbrushed out? Still think he was exploited?

Honestly I think any use of children in anything is exploitative, but should we stop allowing any photos or films with any child actors? They really can't legally consent for even their clothed bodies to appear on camera, their parents have to do so. I don't think it changes anything that there may be a glimpse of genitals (much less breasts or buttocks). It's all exploitation of children by their parents.

If it was a big deal , why not just quit the movie instead ?
Obv it’s a crock story trying to make insane amount of money ….

Ps: judging history with current societal values rarely works without context when it comes to personally condemn people .

The actors have said the nude scene was the last to be filmed, he pressured them to do so, and promised their private areas wouldn't be seen in the final cut.

All of that is very bad, and I don't think things like that should be allowed. They probably aren't allowed today, even for adults, with the "intimacy consultants" and whoever they have now watching over things. I even think that is likely the truth, that the director pressured and tricked them to some extent; other directors have definitely done similar things in the past.

However, at least one of the actors has said just a few years ago that they knew what they were doing, and that it was necessary for the film.
Now five years after that, and 55 years after the movie was made, she wants to cash in because of the California law which temporarily suspended the statute of limitations. And she's not looking to prosecute the director for a crime (he's long dead). She's not even suing the director's estate or heirs (they probably don't have much money). She's suing the production company for tons of money.

Personally, except maybe in some very rare circumstances, I don't think someone should be able to sue another person (or company) for a criminal offense. If there was a crime committed here (and I don't think there should be a statute of limitations for sexual abuse), a prosecutor should press charges against the person. If a company was complicit, they should also press charges against the company. Then the person should go to prison (if still alive), and the company should owe a fine if they profited greatly from the crime. But criminal actions should be enforced by the criminal justice system, not through private tort lawsuits.

If a nude scene is so important for a movie cast an 18 year old.

Films already do that if they think an 18yo can pass for the right age, because it's much easier not to have to follow child labor and school laws.

Bit frivolous. It was obviously more to do with the film's director, Franco Zeffirelli, who was notoriously a bit off. Bruce Robinson, director of Withnail & I, appeared in Zeffirelli's Romeo & Juliet as Benvolio and claims he based the would-be molester Uncle Monty on Zeffirelli. That's Kevin Spacey territory, except no one thought they could complain in those days. (Power differential as between accused and accuser, clannish industry rules and so on.)

I imagine the actual law circa 1967 should probably play a role in determining whether they win or lose the lawsuit. Last time I checked the US Constitution forbids ex post facto charges.

I’m sorry, what? Kids having their junk exposed isn’t any worse to you than fully-clothes child actors?

Not unless it's actual child pornography, which I don't think either of these cases were.

I don't think child labor should be allowed under any circumstances. Nothing to do with nudity, it's all just parental exploitation.

But for prosecution, it should be based on what the law was at the time and place of filming. I don't think there should be civil liability years later if something was legal at the time.

What does this mean for you exactly? No one under 18 working anywhere - restaurants, fast food, stores? Paper routes? Family business?

Nope. I'm sure there are times that it is, but there are plenty of times when it's not. You don't actually believe that every kid is completely unable to give informed consent until that magic day when they turn 18, do you?

I don't know that the age should necessarily be 18, but there has to be some age cutoff, maybe it should be lower.

But I think the age for working, drinking, voting, joining the military, making your own medical decisions, etc. Should all be the same. Either that or have some kind of test for legal maturity, but that would be tough to implement.

It's kinda dumb that a kid can get drafted at age 18, but can't legally buy alcohol until s/he is 21.

The kid apparently is mature enough to kill strangers in another country, but not mature enough to buy and drink a can of beer.

Only ~20% of army recruits are over 21 and only ~10% of marine recruits are over 21. 17 and 18 year olds make up ~50% of enlistments.

They know what they are doing by having recruiters groom highschool kids. (recruiters who receive bonus pay for hitting recruitment quotas)

Place of filming isn't relevant since the suit is against Paramount, based in California, and has been filed in California on the basis of a California law suspending the statute of limitation in cases of sexual exploitation of minors. I don't know if publication of nude and sexualised images of minors for commercial gain was lawful in California in 1968, but I'm guessing probably or arguably not, otherwise the two British actors' lawyers would hardly have advised them to proceed. The suit is a bit of a grift, perhaps, but an interesting one that may (or may not) turn out to be well grounded in law. 'Parental exploitation' has nothing to do with it, since the claim is that the young actors were told they would not have to appear nude and were then blindsided into it on the day of filming.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-64160726

Voting age and drinking age moved in opposite directions since the 1970s.

The voting age used to be 21 while the age to get drafted in the military was 18. The draft for the Viet Nam War started in Dec 1969. A "old enough to fight, old enough to vote" movement grew as people thought that if the government has the power to force 18 year olds to go to war, then 18 year olds should have a say in electing that government. The 26th amendment lowering the voting age to 18 was introduced in Congress in March 1971 and it was ratified by July 1971.

OTOH, at this same time, many states had 18 as the drinking age while others had 21. Military policy was that any member of the military, regardless of age, could drink while on a military installation. As the movement to reduce the number of deaths by DUIs grew, and the large number of DUIs by the 18-21 group was recognized, pressure began building on the States and federal government to raise the drinking age to 21. Some did, some didnt. Around 1984, the federal government pressured the states by putting a provision in the highway funding law that said states with drinking ages under 21 would not receive any federal highway funds. That did the trick and all 50 stated raised the drinking age to 21.

Side note: the alleged killer of the 4 Idaho college students attended Washington State Univ. There is a 10 mile long road connecting WSU with Moscow ID. When I was a student at WSU in the 70s, the drinking age in WA was 21 and in ID it was 18. So every weekend evening there would be a solid line of cars on the 2 lane road through the wheat fields to go to Moscow to drink in the bars. Then at closing time the return trip by dozens of drunk 18-20 year olds was called "running the gauntlet" because of the number of accidents. Fortunately there was nothing but wheat fields surrounding the road, so many cars just ended up in the fields without injuries, though there were also many car collisions.

During this time period the military was getting criticism from states who already had 21 as the drinking age. They said 18 year old soldiers were drinking on post, then driving off post and having DUI crashes and deaths. So the military changed its policy to say that the drinking age on post must match whatever the age is off post. Later they adopted the 21 age everywhere.

Another side note: Army recruiters receive Special Assignment Pay for being a recruiter. Other military jobs also receive that (like drill sergeants, some jobs in the Old Guard in Washington DC). But they do not receive bonuses for hitting quota. Rather it is the negative impact of not doing well on their evaluations and thereby their careers that makes recruiting such a high pressure job.

They have to hit their recruitment quotas or they lose their Special Assignment Pay, which is essentially the same as saying they get bonuses for hitting quotas.

Thanks for the comprehensive history lesson!

No they dont. The pay goes with the position assignment not their performance. At least not in the Army. I cant speak for sure about other branches but Id be surprised if it was different.

You feel old when someone describes a story of stuff you lived through as a history lesson.

I know the feeling!

You're not much older than me.

Mr. Ford was still President when I graduated from High School in 1976.

You have to hit quotas in order to maintain the position assignment so it is performance based.

My son is 14 and has a job and its an incredibly positive influence for him and pay wise he is not exploited in anyway imo, he has more money than he knows what do with.

He can get served in the Pub across the street from where he works, this is not so positive, but British drinking culture gonna British drinking culture.

If he is mature enough to have a job, he should be allowed to drink and do whatever else he wants on his own volition, IMO. If he is not mature enough to drink, vote, make medical decisions, etc, then he shouldn't be allowed to work.

Nothing bad meant about your son, I also worked at a young age.

5 years olds work on movies

This seems completely arbitrary, the maturity needed to make pizza is not in relation to the maturity needed to consume narcotics.