Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

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:
LittleBiscuit09 · 27/08/2021 09:00

Is he asking his parents for damages too? Because I assume they gave permission for the image to be used.

Also he has recreated the image twice with clothes on, seems like a he was really upset by the whole issue for a lot of years.

IMO, it's a money grab. Nudity isn't the same as pornography. I wouldn't publish a photo of my child nude but that is a parenting choice. His argument is with his parents

BabyLeaf · 27/08/2021 09:04

Honestly? Good for him.

His parents were at fault for giving permission, but the record label were more at fault imo for taking a naked image of a child that wasn’t old enough to consent and using it. It’s one of those situations where legally it was fine but morally imo it really wasn’t.

He might have needed time to process it and come to the point he has now where he recognises how wrong it was, though five years ago in an interview he spoke about how messed up it was.

If it’s a cash grab and he feels fine about it? Whatever, go for it. He made next to nothing from it at the time and it has made millions. But I definitely don’t think it’s out of the realm of possibility for him to have taken time to figure out his feelings about it and realise how not okay that was. Personally if I were in his shoes I might not have realised the gravity of it in my teens and twenties, but as an older adult I would recognise how appalling it was that someone did that to me.

category12 · 27/08/2021 09:20

But it's not the album cover that made millions, it's part of the packaging of an album that made millions. If I sang a bunch of songs and had a really grabbing album cover, I still wouldn't sell shit, because the music would be diabolical.

Models don't customarily make a ton of money from the products their images are used to sell - they get a fee. His parents got a fee.

What about all the babies whose images are used to sell products, some of them naked, like nappy adverts - do they get to sue Pampers later on?

minou123 · 27/08/2021 09:29

This reminds me of the black and white poster 'Man and Baby' from Athena in the 90s.

I've tried to attach a photo, but it's not working.

I had that poster on my wall Grin
Anyway, the male model only got £100 and the baby was paid £32. Millions of posters were sold.

The male model has complained, but not sued, that he only got £100, but that's life.

I think those in the industry realise that's the risk you take, when you accept a flat fee.

kurtney · 27/08/2021 10:09

@category12

But it's not the album cover that made millions, it's part of the packaging of an album that made millions. If I sang a bunch of songs and had a really grabbing album cover, I still wouldn't sell shit, because the music would be diabolical.

Models don't customarily make a ton of money from the products their images are used to sell - they get a fee. His parents got a fee.

What about all the babies whose images are used to sell products, some of them naked, like nappy adverts - do they get to sue Pampers later on?

This ^^

From the interviews, he doesn't sound traumatised, he seems more pissed off that Nirvana don't consider him their fourth member (or fifth, if you count Pat Smear).

On the other hand, I do think there's a conversation to be had around using children as models or to boost your IG. I don't think anyone (even parents) should be able to post photos of children who can't consent, or if they do, there should be strict rules around it. I think in the years to come there are going to be a lot of angry kids whose baby photos were plastered all over the internet, but I think the buck ultimately stops with the parents.

MurielSpriggs · 27/08/2021 10:37

@BabyLeaf

Honestly? Good for him.

It’s one of those situations where legally it was fine but morally imo it really wasn’t.

But he's taking legal action!

user1490954378 · 27/08/2021 15:06

He's recreated the photo himself over the years about 4 times, and even wanted to be naked in one of the recreated photos, but the photographer said no. He's got a nirvana inspired tattoo, he's said it was an 'honour' to appear on the album cover, he's appeared in contless interviews, done TV appearances, including Never Mind The Buzzcoks where he happily participated in a game related to him having been in the album cover photo. He's also admitted to bragging about telling women it was him on the Nirvana album cover, to try to get them to sleep with him. He complains that they aren't interested when they find out that he receives no royalties. He reached out to Dave Grohl and Krist Noveselsic to help him promote his art project, but they weren't interested, and he demonstrated his annoyance in an interview where he swore and asked, with words to the effect of, why was he was still on their album cover if he was so unimportant? Well I'm sorry but he sounds a bit pissed off that they wouldn't help him, and now after loving the fact that he was the nirvana baby, he is now changing his mind and going after cash.
Claiming the photo constitutes child pornography and that it makes him look like a sex worker? Really?!! The band always made it clear about the meaning of the photo, and there was never anything remotely sexual about it. As someone said, a pedophile could find the Mothercare catalogue sexual and someone else said maybe even they might get off on Cbeebies! It doesn't mean those things ARE sexual, they are OBVIOUSLY not, but it is the perception of a weirdo that makes them that way. People who are offended by the photo are projecting this weirdness onto it. The photo itself is innocent and the baby was supposed to symbolise that innocence but also how innocent people are corrupted by greed. We are all born innocent, but we aren't born wearing swim nappies, and from an artistic point of view, a swim nappy would have been a bit daft. But there's nothing intended in any sexual way at all. It's just a little baby in a swimming pool chasing a dollar.

user1490954378 · 27/08/2021 15:09

And he's still chasing it! Ironic much?!

PeachyPeachTrees · 27/08/2021 17:26

Stop being such a baby!

a1poshpaws · 28/08/2021 00:13

Piece of piss IMHO. He's cashed in on the fact it was him in the baby pic twice now ... but if he'd not wanted anyone to know it was him, he could just have kept quiet. I mean, who in the world would ever be able to identify an adult from a photo of some random baby? And as for pornography, if we've really reached the stage where a naked baby is regarded by anyone but a truly perverted individual, as an object of sexual curiosity, then please stop the world, because I want to get off.

NiceGerbil · 28/08/2021 03:38

I read about this the other day.

There is nothing pornographic about that image.

The impact of a court saying yes porn... Would be. Huge surely.

It would redefine pornography completely and also have massive ramifications for parents.

I mean I think it's just silly.

If he says the photo was never given permission to be published then take that to court. Fair enough.

Pinklemonade1 · 28/08/2021 08:47

I don't think it would be ok to do this now but this man has 'recreated' the scene many times for people and been paid. I personally think he isn't terribly upset by the whole thing but just wants to make more money

Jaysmith71 · 28/08/2021 09:14

The Blind Faith Girl is still cool about it all:

www.vintag.es/2018/08/mariora-goschen.html

Rather than pay, aged 11 she asked for a pony or a small horse, which was agreed.

A while later, she got impatient and phoned the number given to her by Eric Clapton. "Eric, where's my horse?" she demanded.

This was not an unfamiliar enquiry at the time.

user1471447863 · 28/08/2021 12:08

So he's complaining women don't want to be with him once they discover he's not earning royalties from the album. He should be delighted as frankly they are only after his money, not him. It's a good filter.
They'll probably have slept with him by that point anyway so he'll at least have got something out of their gold digging (though a bit of googling would save them the bother now that it's well publicised that he gets nothing).

category12 · 28/08/2021 12:11

Well, I get the impression he uses the "I'm the Nirvana baby!" thing as a line, so he's deliberately fishing in the "golddigger" pool.

user1471447863 · 28/08/2021 12:14

And as for the talk of the nude photos of Nicola Sturgeon, you could have posted a trigger warning first, I was eating at the time.
Nobody want to see that except maybe the attaché to the French consulate allegedly (though by all accounts she's bound to have her own set already).

Pigeonpocket · 28/08/2021 12:17

I don't think he really thinks it's child porn either, it's just the argument the lawyer is using to try to win a claim.

I do think he has a right to compensation. Especially if its true that his parents were told his genitals would be covered in the final image.

Even if he's previously been OK with it, that doesn't mean that new perspective hasn't changed his mind. Lots of people change their minds about things that have happened to them in the past when they realise that actually, it probably wasn't OK and it's caused them some sort of psychological damage.

Shakerbaby · 28/08/2021 12:23

Can you imagine the comments on here if it was an image of a baby girl? I think he is right to complain and receive damages/royalties.

category12 · 28/08/2021 12:30

@Shakerbaby

Can you imagine the comments on here if it was an image of a baby girl? I think he is right to complain and receive damages/royalties.
It wouldn't be a question because you wouldn't see the genitals.

Or is all naked flesh pornographic and wrong? So the babies whose bums are on tv in adverts should be suing Pampers and those other companies, also.

NiceGerbil · 28/08/2021 15:44

There is nothing pornographic about a snap of a baby whether a boy or a girl having a swim.

If there is then that's a bit of a problem for parents isn't it.

KicksLikeASIeepTwitch · 28/08/2021 22:33

This reminds me of the black and white poster 'Man and Baby' from Athena in the 90s

Ha! That image always makes me laugh because I once saw it with a speech bubble coming out of the baby's mouth saying; ''You're not my daddy!!!'' Grin

Slow on the news front so have only caught up with this story and it reeks of a money grab.
Possibly been posted already but here is an interview with the photographer
www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2015/jan/16/thats-me-picture-spencer-elden-nirvana-nevermind
and here is an interview with Spencer
www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2015/jan/16/thats-me-picture-spencer-elden-nirvana-nevermind
Total change in attitude in 5 years from 'it's opened doors for me' 'I'm glad they chose me' 'it's always been a positive thing' to the current lasting alleged trauma. Should be relatively easy to defend. I think he is hoping just one or two bite, and pay him off, just to get rid of the court action/costs. It is a risk mind as if deemed frivilous, he could be liable for all costs from all parties I would have thought?

KicksLikeASIeepTwitch · 28/08/2021 22:33

frivolous, even!

user1490954378 · 31/08/2021 17:08

@Shakerbaby it wouodn'tbmake any difference if it had been a girl, the photo is supposed to be about innocent humans becoming corrupted by greed. There is nothing sexual about it unless you project that meaning onto it yourself. Someone commented here that pervs were found wity tye Mothercare catalogue. Should babies not be photographed for that either then, incase some pedo gets off on it? And what about the nappy ads on telly, or the follow on milk, showing the baby breast feeding for a short moment? Should that not be shown incase a perv likes it? Should mother's not breastfeed while they are out and about? Or are we going to ban them from doing it, and call it sexual, because some people might see it as sexual? The whole 'constitutes child pornography' is utterly ridiculous, and it's irrelevant whether the baby is a boy or a girl.

user1490954378 · 31/08/2021 17:09

Apologies for all the typos..

grey12 · 31/08/2021 17:16

@Phyllis321

Is nudity automatically pornographic?
I suppose if it's being used to sell something.... you wouldn't compare it to a work of art you see in a gallery, but maybe compare it to hiphop honeys and those are seen as verging on prostituting themselves for notoriety

I could see it as a reflection of modern society, we're more open to seeing/identifying abuse. People nowadays are even realising an uncomfortable past situation could have actually been abusive.