Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Nirvana baby to sue…

281 replies

Toffu · 25/08/2021 08:38

I’ve just read an article about the man who’s photo as a baby was used on the cover of Nevermind.

He is planning to sue the band for violating pornography laws and claims that his parents never signed a release allowing Nirvana to use the photo.

He alleges Nirvana "used child pornography depicting Spencer as an essential element of a record promotion scheme commonly utilized in the music industry to get attention, wherein album covers posed children in a sexually provocative manner to gain notoriety, drive sales, and garner media attention, and critical reviews." He says he’s suffered and will co it is to suffer lifelong damages.

While a lot of people (judging by online comments) seem to think it’s a money grab, I’m inclined to agree with him. Imagine if Michael Jackson or Take That had done this? Is it considered ok because it’s rock music, an arty shot and he’s a boy? Am I being unreasonable to think actually it’s really not ok?

OP posts:
Youcanchangeyournamebut · 25/08/2021 08:42

Just had to Google the cover. Never really looked that close and I think always assumed it was a foot, as who would put a baby's genitals on their album cover Confused Pretty grim, I agree.

MuchasSmoochas · 25/08/2021 08:44

Ooh interesting. While I think he should have received money for the image, it’s not sexually provocative.

MurielSpriggs · 25/08/2021 08:45

It's not pornographic (or "grim")!

RoxytheRexy · 25/08/2021 08:45

I think I agree with him. And even if it is a money grab then I’m ok with that too. I’m sure the record company can afford it

SmidgenofaPigeon · 25/08/2021 08:45

He’s been trying to do this for years and years hasn’t he? I guess he found a lawyer who’ll take it on.

ladygracie · 25/08/2021 08:47

He’s recreated the cover himself twice (with clothes on!) which I thought was interesting.
I’d never noticed before that you can see genitals either.
I wonder if one of the 15 people he wants damages from is his dad who is the one who put him in the water.

Phyllis321 · 25/08/2021 08:47

Is nudity automatically pornographic?

Kanaloa · 25/08/2021 08:47

Yes, I saw that. To be fair I’d hate if it was baby me naked on album covers, posters, t-shirts.

I think what stands out is that the baby doesn’t need to be naked. He could be wearing a swim nappy and it would still be the same artistic shot of the baby swimming after the money, just without his penis in clear view.

FlatteredFool · 25/08/2021 08:48

Can you link the article please?

I'd never thought about it and I loved that album as a teen and still have it. It was just a baby on the cover. Album covers are almost always weird so I just shrugged it off as another weird album cover. I've just had a look now and I don't see it as sexualised, just a naked baby in a pool trying to grab money. They didn't have to be so clear on his genitalia though did they. It's about 30 years since I was listening to that album so why now? If I read the article maybe it will make sense.

Georgieporgie29 · 25/08/2021 08:49

Where did nirvana get the photo from, surely the baby’s parents agreed to it, maybe he should be suing them.
Also, how do people know that it is him in the photo? Is he telling people? Or is it we’ll known?
I’m not sure how I feel to be honest, it shouldn’t be on an album cover obviously (although I never actually realised how much you saw, I think I thought it was a foot) but surely his parents are the ones at fault by allowing it (I admit I have no idea about the back story though so I could be completely wrong)

LawnFever · 25/08/2021 08:50

Considering he recreated the picture and released it to the press when he was older I think it’s weird he’s suddenly changed his stance now?

diffuser.fm/nirvana-nevermind-album-cover-baby/

Yeah he should’ve got paid for the image (some versions are now edited), but I think the fact he did this will go against any claim he’s been damaged by it somehow.

MumUndone · 25/08/2021 08:50

It's not sexualised or sexually provocative in any way, and we judge things by very different standards now then we did when the album was released. Fine, pay the guy some money for using his image, but come on, it's really not pornography - and what does it say about our society today that we think it is.

FlatteredFool · 25/08/2021 08:50

To be honest I'd be more angry with the parents who had him circumcised (unless it was for medical reasons of course)

MuchasSmoochas · 25/08/2021 08:51

Just checked and his dad was friends with the photographer and he got 200 dollars.

Wrongsideofhistorymyarse · 25/08/2021 08:51

He's alleging that the shot was deliberately 'provocative' to entice Nirvana fans.

I've got the album and not once have I looked at the cover and thought anything other than 'baby'. Ugh.

LawnFever · 25/08/2021 08:52

I meant to link the photo too of him recreating the image in 2012.

diffuser.fm/nirvana-nevermind-album-cover-baby/

TheViewFromTheCheapSeats · 25/08/2021 08:52

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/nypost.com/2016/09/23/nirvana-baby-recreates-iconic-album-cover-25-years-later/amp/

Well he’s a 2016 article showing him personally trafficking the image himself 🤷‍♀️

He’s recreated it a few times and given loads of interviews, surely if it is child peon he’s still guilty of trafficking and promoting it himself…

TheViewFromTheCheapSeats · 25/08/2021 08:52

@LawnFever you thought the same!

FightingtheFoo · 25/08/2021 08:53

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

SilverTimpani · 25/08/2021 08:54

It potentially raises some interesting questions. We don’t tend to view every photo of a naked child as pornographic, which is right in my view. There’s nothing sexually explicit about that photo. But there is, to me, something uncomfortable about using a photo of a naked child without consent from the child.

If he gets anywhere with his lawsuit it could have ramifications for people who post naked photos of their children online. I don’t see it very often, but now and then pictures crop up on Instagram of kids in the bath / naked in their back gardens etc. A successful lawsuit might make parents think twice about posting photos like that online.

SpicyJalfrezi · 25/08/2021 08:54

While I agree it certainly isn’t provocative or sexual I am surprised by the number of people who have never noticed. I think it is very obvious.

But Nevermind was 91, perhaps? I think that attitudes have changed a lot since then.

LawnFever · 25/08/2021 08:54

@TheViewFromTheCheapSeats lol I didn’t know he’d done it more than once! Grin

So he recreates the image at least twice for his own PR but all of a sudden it’s ‘pornographic’ - nonsense!

fucketyfuckwit · 25/08/2021 08:54

Surely he has benefited financially already from the album cover?

I agree that these days it wouldn't be acceptable but the world was very different 35/40 years ago. We have progressed, some for better, some not so.

I think he needs thicker skin.

MintyCedric · 25/08/2021 08:54

Someone clearly wants money and attention.

It's not as if anyone would recognise him from that photo!

Youcanchangeyournamebut · 25/08/2021 08:55

I agree it's not provocative or sexualised, but I do think it's a bit grim to share a picture of your naked child, without their consent, with millions of people. Although maybe I'm judging by today's standards which is perhaps a bit unfair. In my view it's akin to posting a nude shot of your child on social media, which in my circles is certainly not the done thing.