Inappropriate Sample Pack Cover?

[Robmobius]

I think if you want to call that out, then there's a shitload of Punk/Metal/Industrial and other bands that have used deeply disturbing imagery. It kinda' goes with the territory and tends to be used for shock value (or an anti-statement - especially with punk).

And where do you draw the line? Smack my bitch up? God save the Queen? Tbh I don't really believe in censorship within music.

Plus, it probably wasn't done out of malice.

[Tricky-Loops]

What's next?

Using a 9/11 image for a sample pack with sexy vocal licks?

If the Challenger explosion image were used for a punk CD cover, illustrating the fallibility of technology, with a CD and the respective songs, I'd understand it -- but for sub bass samples??

[Morgaxx]

Poor taste alert...

What colour were Christa McAuliffes' eyes?

Blew. One blew this way, one blew that way.

[Robmobius]

What's next?

Using a 9/11 image for a sample pack with sexy vocal licks?

If the Challenger explosion image were used for a punk CD cover, illustrating the fallibility of technology, with a CD and the respective songs, I'd understand it -- but for sub bass samples??

Yes, I agree to some extent. While I personally wouldn't have a pic like that for my sample pack. But I think it was probably an innocuous reason that the producer used it. They may not have known or really thought about it.

So if you think it's not appropriate that's cool, but I think as an artist everything is fair game as long as it's 'legal'.

I'd be more worried about the censorship billy club that would follow. If you open up that floodgate.

[Tricky-Loops]

What's next?

Using a 9/11 image for a sample pack with sexy vocal licks?

If the Challenger explosion image were used for a punk CD cover, illustrating the fallibility of technology, with a CD and the respective songs, I'd understand it -- but for sub bass samples??

Yes, I agree to some extent. While I personally wouldn't have a pic like that for my sample pack. But I think it was probably an innocuous reason that the producer used it. They may not have known or really thought about it.

So if you think it's not appropriate that's cool, but I think as an artist everything is fair game as long as it's 'legal'.

I'd be more worried about the censorship billy club that would follow. If you open up that floodgate.

Well, it's 30 years later now... But imagine someone had used the image directly after the incident - there would have been a big scandal because the Challenger explosion was the worst space mission incident at that time in the United States, it was a national catastrophe in a difficult period (Cold War), it shocked the whole country and stopped space missions for years! Now let's think about Columbia...

[Robmobius]

What's next?

Using a 9/11 image for a sample pack with sexy vocal licks?

If the Challenger explosion image were used for a punk CD cover, illustrating the fallibility of technology, with a CD and the respective songs, I'd understand it -- but for sub bass samples??

Yes, I agree to some extent. While I personally wouldn't have a pic like that for my sample pack. But I think it was probably an innocuous reason that the producer used it. They may not have known or really thought about it.

So if you think it's not appropriate that's cool, but I think as an artist everything is fair game as long as it's 'legal'.

I'd be more worried about the censorship billy club that would follow. If you open up that floodgate.

Well, it's 30 years later now... But imagine someone had used the image directly after the incident - there would have been a big scandal because the Challenger explosion was the worst space mission incident at that time in the United States, it was a national catastrophe in a difficult period (Cold War), it shocked the whole country and stopped space missions for years! Now let's think about Columbia...

Yes, I remember that incident, it was terribly tragic. But you can't really use, 'if they used it back then' argument. We are talking about 30 years ago.

Also, just because something offends certain people that does'nt mean it shouldn't be used. I mean, there's plenty of Punk imagery that calls out the US for their war in the Middle East. Art is always going to piss someone off and quite often it's meant to, for good or ill.

[chrisby]

Not exactly the same thing but... I was in a doughnut shop about 20-25 years ago and had a tee-shirt on that incorporated an Iron Cross in it's logo. It was a surfboard company and definitely not meant to be political or anti-semitic. Anyway, the only other person in the shop was an old woman who got visibly upset and in a strong E. European accent came up to me and start pointing to my shirt asking me "what does it mean, what does it mean". I really didn't know what she was getting at and just said "it's a surfboard company". She looked at me, basically with daggers in her eyes, and pulled up her sleeve and pointed to a tattoo. Like the concentration camp kind... I went home and tossed the shirt.

I guess for me I learned that you should be aware of the impact that having to see whatever imagery might have on the actual victims or their relatives. They're probably out there somewhere whether you personally have to look them in the eye and explain yourself or not....

[highkoo]

I thought, "That looks remarkably like a picture of the Challenger explosion."

Wow. How old were you when it happened?
Id say you have a pretty good photographic memory.

Do we think the creator of it knew what the image was?
Do we think the creator used the image because of a connection to the event?
Do we think the creator expected most people would know it was from that event?
Do we think most people actually do know it is from that event?
Do any of these things matter?

[Orbit-50]

What's next?
Using a 9/11 image for a sample pack with sexy vocal licks?

I wouldn't be surprised at all, with all the garbage people on this earth.

.-.

[bailees7irish]

I used video footage from that incident as my music video for a track of mine. While I suppose it could be considered offensive to some, I'm not a politically-correct person and I don't constantly concern myself with what will or will not offend someone. Life is too short for that. Besides, you can't please everyone all the time and there will always be someone who is displeased with something you do no matter how hard you try to avoid it.

The photo is cool; it makes an interesting cover, it got your attention, and it caused a (tiny tiny) bit of a stir here on KVR, so I'd say overall it was a damn good choice.

[bailees7irish]

I have to agree with the OP that the cover is in very poor taste. It would be enough for me to boycott the producer. It is bad enough when companies use hypersexualized images of women to sell samples. Exploiting the deaths of astronauts, is really beyond the pale.

As for copyright, it is public domain. Because NASA is funded by the Federal government, all images, video and audio is public domain.

Exploiting the deaths of astronauts?
My god, what is this world coming to...?

[bailees7irish]

Yeah, this is not offensive. But two tall towers next to eachother on anything ever post 9-11? Obviously terrorist sympathizers.

[VitaminD]

What's next?

Using a 9/11 image for a sample pack with sexy vocal licks?

If the Challenger explosion image were used for a punk CD cover, illustrating the fallibility of technology, with a CD and the respective songs, I'd understand it -- but for sub bass samples??

Yes, I agree to some extent. While I personally wouldn't have a pic like that for my sample pack. But I think it was probably an innocuous reason that the producer used it. They may not have known or really thought about it.

So if you think it's not appropriate that's cool, but I think as an artist everything is fair game as long as it's 'legal'.

I'd be more worried about the censorship billy club that would follow. If you open up that floodgate.

There wouldn't be a need for so many laws and rules if people, at their own decision, would be more thoughtful/considerate and empathetic of other people...

[herodotus]

Not exactly the same thing but... I was in a doughnut shop about 20-25 years ago and had a tee-shirt on that incorporated an Iron Cross in it's logo. It was a surfboard company and definitely not meant to be political or anti-semitic. Anyway, the only other person in the shop was an old woman who got visibly upset and in a strong E. European accent came up to me and start pointing to my shirt asking me "what does it mean, what does it mean". I really didn't know what she was getting at and just said "it's a surfboard company". She looked at me, basically with daggers in her eyes, and pulled up her sleeve and pointed to a tattoo. Like the concentration camp kind... I went home and tossed the shirt.

I guess for me I learned that you should be aware of the impact that having to see whatever imagery might have on the actual victims or their relatives. They're probably out there somewhere whether you personally have to look them in the eye and explain yourself or not....

I don't want to offend anyone, but that is really irrational. The Iron Cross predates Nazi Germany by over a century.

It's like a Japanese American being offended by a California state flag because Californians helped round up Japanese Americans in 1941.

[Orbit-50]

Not exactly the same thing but... I was in a doughnut shop about 20-25 years ago and had a tee-shirt on that incorporated an Iron Cross in it's logo. It was a surfboard company and definitely not meant to be political or anti-semitic. Anyway, the only other person in the shop was an old woman who got visibly upset and in a strong E. European accent came up to me and start pointing to my shirt asking me "what does it mean, what does it mean". I really didn't know what she was getting at and just said "it's a surfboard company". She looked at me, basically with daggers in her eyes, and pulled up her sleeve and pointed to a tattoo. Like the concentration camp kind... I went home and tossed the shirt.
I guess for me I learned that you should be aware of the impact that having to see whatever imagery might have on the actual victims or their relatives. They're probably out there somewhere whether you personally have to look them in the eye and explain yourself or not....

Excellent case pointing out the fact that "perception is reality" in the eye of the beholder. Nothing will ever change this fact. That's why I could see people getting upset over this, and other stuff that some might seem to think is silly to get upset over. Great point made here chrisby.

.-.