Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

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:
DrSbaitso · 26/08/2021 19:26

He's made comments in recent years about his mixed feelings over it and the photographer has confirmed he's had conversations along those lines.

If you can't change your mind about a naked baby picture, what can you change your mind about?

Mollymoostoo · 26/08/2021 19:34

www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2015/jan/16/thats-me-picture-spencer-elden-nirvana-nevermind

He wasn't so bothered a few years ago...money grab.
If he wants paying, just own it and yes I guess he should be paid, but the law suit is a mockery to the real victims of abuse.

onanoff · 26/08/2021 19:44

I read that he was paid (or his parents were) $250 for the image

Given how much money the album made and how iconic that image is, i hope he gets a decent pay out now. Grohl and co can afford it

Plunger · 26/08/2021 19:46

He has recreated the album cover several times as a teenager and as an adult all be it wearing swimming trunks: 10th, 20th and 25th anniversaries of the release of Nevermind album. So much for finding the original caused him lifelong damage. Definitely a money Grab!

DottyHarmer · 26/08/2021 19:48

That’s absolutely irrelevant, @onanoff . You sign a contract. That’s it. Some people sign a contract which involves a share of profits, but most musicians/artists etc do a piece of work for a set price. You can’t claim decades later that you want a bigger price because something may have become iconic.

SnottyLottie · 26/08/2021 19:55

I love the irony that he’s chasing money for a photo of him as a baby chasing money (and has chased money by recreating the photo of him chasing money).

Nevermind inception?

Morgysmum · 26/08/2021 20:03

It's odd, I am a fan of Nirvana. I have never seen it any other way, than a baby in the water.
I was more surprised a baby, could breathe under water( 13 year old) than I was about the fact the baby was nude.
I know, the man he has grown up into, has posed as an adult. To recreate, the album cover, but with clothes on. Why did he do that, if he was upset and suffering? Let's hope he gets the mental health support that he might need and not just burn any money he receives.

Yourcatisnotsorry · 26/08/2021 20:14

He’s got it tattooed on himself…
I think they should have edited out his penis but it’s not pornographic is it?

Courgetteandbeans · 26/08/2021 20:16

I've never noticed it before but now I can't unsee it, I think it is really quite unpleasant and unnecessary.

onanoff · 26/08/2021 20:25

@DottyHarmer i agree but babies cant sign contracts or consent for their naked body to be beamed around the world for 3 decades for the benefit of a rock band.

I don't blame him for trying

I bet it is settled out of court

Margerine78 · 26/08/2021 20:27

@Courgetteandbeans

I've never noticed it before but now I can't unsee it, I think it is really quite unpleasant and unnecessary.
Surely it's just an image of a baby being water-born though, and the dollar a comment on capitalism. It would be really weird having what is meant to be a new born in water in a nappy.

It's really not meant to be suggestive or pornographic at all. If we have this attitude to nudity where's it going to end? I feel like 80% of art would be banned.

To be the only suggestive thing on the whole image is the dollar note.

Sprogonthetyne · 26/08/2021 20:37

In the 90's, little kids and babies swimming naked on the beach etc was perfectly normal, so I doubt anyone at the time gave it a second thought. It's no worse then that evian advert they used to have with the naked babies swimming.

SinisterBumFacedCat · 26/08/2021 20:41

Ironically the picture captured his attitude perfectly.

LidlMiddleLover · 26/08/2021 20:49

Just jumping on the money train Ridiculous when its been around years Traumatic for him at that age no way Traumatised for years ?Don’t be ridiculous

Localocal · 26/08/2021 23:23

I don't think it's pornographic, but I do think the guy's father should answer for letting someone take naked photos of his baby for 200 bucks. And I feel like not cropping out his penis was a bit provocative.

Bugbabe1970 · 26/08/2021 23:27

What a load of rubbish
He's got the album tattooed on his chest
He posed for an adult version of it
If he wants to sue anyone Sue his parents

ThirtyCharacterUsernamesOnly30 · 26/08/2021 23:32

I haven't read any posts except the first one. I loved Nirvana as a teen. I had a vague recollection of a baby but no recollection at all of genitals. I immediately googled. One photo has genitals, one doesn't. No idea which one was actually used but prior to this thread I would have said 'no genitals'.

If I was that child (with genitals) and was young I would be angry! At my age, 40, not
so bothered.

But, that doesn't discount how the person pictured feels. And, if they are unhappy about it, then they have every right to feel that way.

The parents should not have agreed to it. The parents are equally as complicit as the record company.

Nirvana baby to sue…
thymeofmylife · 26/08/2021 23:39

I don't think it's for anyone other than him to decide how he feels, and if he wants to spend his time and money pursuing this, and potentially benefitting from money that the band/estate can most certainly afford, then good luck to him.

It certainly raises some interesting questions but I don't feel I can judge him for his actions, having not been in his position. I don't think it's particularly relevant to discuss things like him having tattoos or having posed the album cover I'm subsequent decades, since for most of that time he was still a minor - and regardless, none of that is evidence against him having the feelings he says he has. Bad analogy I guess but if someone claims after a relationship ends that it was abusive, you don't remind them of all the times they enjoyed their ex's company. It's possible for him to have exploited the fame and still feel negatively about it.

MistySkiesAfterRain · 27/08/2021 00:26

The baby underwater concerned me. Of course he should receive some compensation.

Mamanyt · 27/08/2021 00:47

First, I don't see how he suffered that much when he recreated the album cover (with clothing) himself. THAT is going to come out in court. Second I don't see how he suffered since not a single soul in the world knew it was him until he, himself, began broadcasting it, willy-nilly. Third, about 98% of the world has had nude photos taken of themselves as infants at some point or another, and those photos have been shown to half the people that the family knows. Go sue ALL of them. Especially the parents. Fifth, is he suing his own parents for taking the photo, or for failing to ensure that it would remain private?

Look, I don't find that photo to be pornographic in the least, but I am not a pedophile. There are freaks of all descriptions. I'm not going to sue someone for publishing a photo of my feet because a foot fetishist finds my feet (God help them) arousing. To a normal person, that picture is not pornographic, it is, at best, amusing. It is, at worst, mildly exploitive of the child in general without pornography coming into it. I kinda feel the same distaste whenever small children and infants are used to sell a product.

Toomuchtrouble4me · 27/08/2021 01:06

It’s not a nice shot. Let him sue.

Kithic · 27/08/2021 07:24

In a 2016 interview withGQ Australia, Elden said his stance on the photograph changed after he reached out to Nirvana to see if the band would participate in an art show he was putting on. “I was asking if they wanted to put a piece of art in the fucking thing,” he said. “I was getting referred to their managers and their lawyers. Why am I still on their cover if I’m not that big of a deal?”

category12 · 27/08/2021 07:29

It just sounds like he's fucked off and vengeful because they weren't interested in helping him promote his art.

MyTeenagersPissMeOffMostDays · 27/08/2021 08:37

He has cashed in on that album cover plenty of times. He wanted to use his connection and get the band yo help promote his art show, when the band didn't get in contact after reaching out to them he decided to sue. It is a money grab.

Swipe left for the next trending thread