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?

NO SUCH THING as child porn.

It's images of child sex abuse.

Which this isn't, really.

Just needed to make that clear, as it winds me up a treat

I guess he’s just pissed he is in one of the most iconic images of the last 40+ years a d has not benefitted much financially, and that’s fair enough. The record company should have come to an agreement with him probably

Here’s an article with an interview from the photographer who shot it originally, explaining how they found the baby

The comments on the baby being “well hung” are really really weird

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2019/jun/06/kirk-weddle-best-photograph-nirvana-nevermind-swimming-baby

It's not pornographic.

He's probably disappointed that he's not benefitted financially from being on one of the biggest selling and most recognisable album covers of all time.

[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]
I think it was 'yes' as in 'yes it can be'

No you are not likely to be prosecuted for appropriate family snaps, held privately. Best not to publish them though, and sharing online can count as publication.

There were a few album covers of that era that used provocative images, anyone remember the Suede ‘is it two men, two women of a woman and a man’ cover?

I suppose it this ever thus, doesn’t make it any less exploitative to use a naked child though.

*twas ever thus

If Nirvana had been unsuccessful and faded away and Kurt Cobain still with us today living in Seattle playing in a wedding band, would the guy still be suing? That’s what I always think when people sue Disneyworld or McDonald’s. Why should your case be better because the object of your complaint is rich?

Agree too that who would recognise this guy? If he turned up on my doorstep today I’d hardly gasp and cry, “You’re that baby from Nevermind!”

There are issues around consent - his parents were paid for an image which has been reproduced millions of times. I'd like to think that, if this cover had been shot recently, the baby would have been wearing something.

He should be suing his parents, IMO. But I expect they don't have megabucks, hence going after Nirvana.

The music industry is awash with people who made (or whose representatives made ) bad deals for them. And also record companies who lost loads of money on projects that flopped. You sign the contract and that's that. His dad got £200 apparently, and was presumably quite happy at the time. It's not like babies were in short supply.

@LawnFever more than twice! He first did at 10- he’s really really dined out on being the Nirvana baby!

He's drawn attention to himself for years (otherwise nobody would have known it was him) and this is a total money grab. It's a naked baby fgs, it's in the same realm as a sexual image as a breastfeeding woman i.e. not at all.

@Blinkingheckythump

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

Well quite!

@DottyHarmer

If Nirvana had been unsuccessful and faded away and Kurt Cobain still with us today living in Seattle playing in a wedding band, would the guy still be suing? That’s what I always think when people sue Disneyworld or McDonald’s. Why should your case be better because the object of your complaint is rich?

Agree too that who would recognise this guy? If he turned up on my doorstep today I’d hardly gasp and cry, “You’re that baby from Nevermind!”

If Nirvana had faded into obscurity that picture would have as well. I think it’s relevant that it’s still a very iconic imagine today.

@SmidgenofaPigeon

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.

I actually checked the date of the thread because I am pretty sure I read about this few years back

A naked baby is not automatically pornographic ffs!

I’m surprised at the time looking back we were all immature teenagers when this came out, many friends had the poster, yet none of us actually ever seemed to notice or comment on the penis. Genuinely hadn’t really noticed it before, just that it was generally a naked baby.

Whilst I get it's not a competition, it feels extremely crass given the huge numbers of children involved in the making of child abuse images/sexual abuse situations that are horrific beyond the imagination of most of us. Many of them are dirt poor and being sold by their own families in order to survive. I'll reserve my sympathies for them I think. 🤷🏻‍♀️

@Toffu

“Someone clearly wants money and attention”

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

I have the album, when I bought it as I teen I didn’t pay any attention to the cover, it was just a baby swimming, I bought the album for the music!

This is so clearly a money grab, if he had always voiced discomfort over the image it would be completely different but he has forced himself into the limelight over the image time and time again, he has been proud of being the baby on their album cover but now he suddenly has an issue with it?

It is ironic that
a) the image is of a baby chasing money
b) he says that the image and his name are forever linked but the only reason people know it is him is that he tells people!

@TacoSunday

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

Was about to post exactly the same Tacosunday

@TheViewFromTheCheapSeats

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…

I agree. Why has he suddenly changed his stance? Oh wait, money.

I disagree with OP. The album cover is not sexualising a baby. If you think it is then there’s something wrong with you.

I'd like to know what lifelong damages he's claiming to have suffered!

I think it's weird and fucked up to look at that photo of a naked baby and say it's sexualised - it is not. It's not posed to titillate.

Being naked does not equal sexualised unless you're a bloody freak.

So, did his parents consent to the photo?