Nirvana baby to sue…

[Toffu]

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?

The whole point of it was that it was a photo symbolising something that is completely non sexual. The baby was supposed to symbolise the innocence. Saying there is a sexual meaning to it, or that it could be interpreted as sexual, or that the baby looks like a sex worker (which Spencer's lawyers claim) is absurd. Hippop honeys are supposed to be sexual. Sex does sell, but this isn't sexual and was never meant to be. People bought the album because of the music - the band's success was not down to the cover art. It was because they had a huge following for the music they made and still do to this day, as well as still being very influential to other newer artists. If they had been unsuccessful no one would even remember that album cover. It isn't what sold the album.

I agree we are more open to identifying abuse these days, but this was not abuse. His parents gave permission for his photo to be taken and accepted payment. He was not abused or harmed. He has always maintained he was happy to be on the cover anyway. 'Honoured' even. He recreated it and made tye photos public, even wantingbto be naked as an adult in one of these photos, but tyevphotographer said no. A naked man is different to a naked baby. He said in an interview, in so many words, why was he still on the album cover still if he was so effing unimportant. This was after the remaining members of Nirvana AND the photograpgher (who took that original photo) were not interested in being involved in his art project.

@user1490954378 jiiiiii that does definitely not sound like someone who is uncomfortable with the image I was being kind, but now I don't think it applies, you're right

Hell hath no fury like a grabby fucker scorned.

Presumably if he wins this case on the premise that the image constitutes 'child pornography' (his words not mine). He can expect to be arrested for distribution given all of the times he rocked up and sold signed copies of said image?

It's certainly not legal to produce and distribute CSE images just because you happen to be the child involved is it? So I'd say he's walking a dangerous line.

Yes. And, if a naked baby is ruled to be “pornographic” then that has repercussions everywhere: cherubs in paintings/statues must be covered up, no naked babies/toddlers at the beach - it would set a problematic precedent.