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?

@fucketyfuckwit

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.

I think the issue is he’s never received royalties from the image, his dad sold it for about $200 and never had any legal agreement to get any additional fees for its reproduction.

@Phyllis321

Is nudity automatically pornographic?

Yes

It's a 2 on the COPINE scale (for nudism) but anywhere between 3 and 6 if posed, depending on emphasis on genitals, style of pose and whether taken surreptitiously), a 1 on the SAP scale, and category C under the 2014 sexual offences sentencing guidelines

I've got the album and not once have I looked at the cover and thought anything other than 'baby'.
Me either. 'porn'? 'grim'? Says more about people's mindsets in my opinion.

He's changed his mind since he did this interview about six years ago. www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2015/jan/16/thats-me-picture-spencer-elden-nirvana-nevermind Maybe his work isn't going well and he needs the money.

I meant changed his tune not mind...

It's supposed to illustrate the societal expectation that people should chase money from the minute they're born (hence being naked).

I think originally Nirvana wanted to use a water birth picture but went with the photographer's idea to use his friend's baby in a pool. It's not a child being posed in a "sexually provocative manner". In fact I think it's taken a long time for this man to find a lawyer who even thinks it's worth trying to pursue these claims, which are tenuous.

The baby in the photograph has courted fame as far as I can see. He could have remained anonymous but chose to cover himself in Nirvana tattoos, recreated the album cover as an adult twice and heavily publicised himself as the Nirvana baby, calling it an honour in many interviews.

Who would know he was that baby - unless he keeps reminding people?

@MintyCedric

Someone clearly wants money and attention.

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

this

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.ladbible.com/entertainment/latest-baby-from-nirvanas-nevermind-album-sues-band-for-child-pornography-20210825.amp.html

This is the article I read but there are quite a few now.

It's a beautiful image. Thee are wider issues that could be examined to do with child modelling in general, but to say this is pornographic is ridiculous IMO.

Well a baby can't (of course) consent to being in pornography so the question really is: is this child sexual exploitation? I don't think it is, personally, but I accept the person involved may have a different view.

However, if his parents sold the image, surely they'd be the ones he'd have to sue? The fact he's suing the band does make it seem like a money grab.

as he's recreated the image himself (more than once?) that suggests he's been happy to profit from the image's fame himself, which weakens his case somewhat.

Also I genuinely did not ever know there was a penis in that picture... DH had (and loved) the album but had it on CD and he never, ever put his CD's back in the box. So essentially this publicity has raised awareness... There will also be a whole generation who have discovered Nirvana digitally and probably not noticed this either given their only visual exposure to the cover would be a digital thumbnail.

He's been milking this for years, in different ways. He would be better off actually doing something with his own life IMO.

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

Is he suggesting all Nirvana fans are peados and perverts?

Most people would look and think, aww cute baby swimming. There is nothing sexual about that picture and no one would even know who the fuck it was as an adult if he hadn't recreated it and told everyone it was him for the attention and money.

I never noticed it. Just thought baby grabbing money. That’s funny. A statement on greed or something.

“Someone clearly wants money and attention”

Like the band did when they used his naked photo to get these things?

It’s a picture of a baby. Without clothes on. That doesn’t mean it’s automatically pornographic. That guys a total loser but he has been swimming after money since he was a babe.

I honestly thought it was his other foot.
He's just trying to get his hands on cash, which is rather funny considering the message behind the photo

Nothing sexual about that picture. It's actually about innocence and how people are corrupted by money. That's what my 15 year old self thought anyway.

But if his dad got $200 he did get paid for it. In reality, the lawsuit should be against his parents if he's angry as they allowed it.
He's created the cover twice so clearly wasn't suffering then, he's put himself out there. He's just after money.

@Toffu

“Someone clearly wants money and attention”

Like the band did when they used his naked photo to get these things?

See, I don't think that's true. They would have gotten the money and attention whatever the cover because the album was amazing. I don't even look at the cover it certainly didn't attract me or anyone I know to buy it - the music did. The cover is no more than a statement about money in western society, I wouldn't call it pornographic in any way at all, although I admit I would hate to have one of my baby photos out there like that!

@Farahilda does that mean that every person who has a photo of their freshly born naked child or child in the bath possesses illegal indecent imagery? Not being sarky, genuinely curious. Surely that would mean an awful lot of child sex offenders in the country.

The prophesy of the baby clutching for money appears to have come true.

[quote LadyOfLittleLeisure]@Farahilda does that mean that every person who has a photo of their freshly born naked child or child in the bath possesses illegal indecent imagery? Not being sarky, genuinely curious. Surely that would mean an awful lot of child sex offenders in the country.[/quote]
It’s more that it was used in an exploitative way, to get money and public attention

@SayItBackwards

Who would know he was that baby - unless he keeps reminding people?

This exactly!

Plus … it’s just a naked baby.

Is nudity automatically pornographic?

Yes

It's a 2 on the COPINE scale (for nudism) but anywhere between 3 and 6 if posed, depending on emphasis on genitals, style of pose and whether taken surreptitiously), a 1 on the SAP scale, and category C under the 2014 sexual offences sentencing guidelines.

Thank you @Farahilda

I did not know this. If this means that the picture is pornographic I think this says more about the rather bizarre nature of the sentencing guidelines than it does about that image.

@TacoSunday

The prophesy of the baby clutching for money appears to have come true.