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?

OMG!

When do we gather up all the putto and burn those dastardly paintings?

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

He had 2 choices:

Shut up and kep quiet about being the baby pictured

Shout about it and make himself known

He chose the latter, and made money, kudos from it. He is forever connected not to some shameful image but a groundbreaking album. That he wishes to reframe it as indecent is sod all to do with the intent - of the band, photographer or his parents!

How the fuck is it exploitation?

www.loudersound.com/features/why-have-facebook-banned-led-zeppelins-houses-of-the-holy-artwork

Blind Faith were 'worse' - though I like the idea that the model asked for a horse as payment!

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

He wants money. This is from a 2016 article in Time.

Frustrated about never receiving any sort of compensation for Nevermind, Elden recently looked into pursuing legal action against Geffen Records, but was unsuccessful. “It’s hard not to get upset when you hear how much money was involved,” he says.

He also says he still lives with his parents and drives a Honda Civic. He has a large chest tattoo that says ‘Never Mind’ and he’s recreated the album cover as an adult. He isn’t mentally scarred by this, he’s broke and wants some money.

So, did his parents consent to the photo?

Yes, they were paid $200.

I've never seen the album before, but from a quick google, it's quite clearly his foot not his genitals. Nothing wrong with that photo at all!

@Howshouldibehave

So, did his parents consent to the photo?

Yes. They were friends of the photographer and were there, fully consenting, apparently happy with the idea and the image.

@Heckythump1

I've never seen the album before, but from a quick google, it's quite clearly his foot not his genitals. Nothing wrong with that photo at all!

Sorry!?!?! How big do you think his left foot is??

Or do you think he jas 2 knees?

@Heckythump1

I've never seen the album before, but from a quick google, it's quite clearly his foot not his genitals. Nothing wrong with that photo at all!

No, it’s his penis. I don’t necessarily think that makes it wrong or gives him a solid case but it’s definitely his penis.

If there was a quiz question asking if baby's penis is visible I would've said no. 100%. that's how unremarkable it is - the actual underwater image is far more powerful than a body part that happens to be there.

He's a money grabbing twat.
Also wouldn't getting paid for a naked baby photo be considered child pornography?
It feels quite ironic that he claims it's pornography because he was never paid.
ah, well, Nevermind

I wish people would stop confusing nudity with pornography. There is nothing remotely sexual or pornographic about this picture.

I supposed the wider issue of children having images of themselves put into the public arena forever before they can consent themselves is interesting. I always wonder if in future this will be the case for the mummy bloggers who post every aspect of their children's lives online.

In this case be probably is after some easy money, why not really, I'd be tempted to do the same hah.

I can see there's more to this than meets the eye, but before I go off to Google some more, if he's claiming that his parents never signed a release allowing Nirvana to use the photo, they (his parents) have had since 1991 to do something about it!

He's an attention seeker.
He has never mind tattooed on him and moans he's never met the band. Ffs

I feel like his parents owe him $200.

ew.com/article/2016/09/22/nirvana-nevermind-album-cover-behind-scenes/

From a few years ago... For his skinny-dipping adventure, Spencer was paid $250 (standard hourly rate for a no-name model) and was later presented with a triple-platinum album by Ed Rosenblatt, president of Geffen Records.

If he didn't go around telling everyone that he was the Nirvana baby then he wouldn't suffer, would he?

At the time the album came out taking your little baby swimming was quite a new thing. The fact that you could just put them in water and they floated and swam naturally, amazed everyone, and the images of these little babies swimming were everywhere.

He should get a proper job if he wants money.

I am sure I saw one of those ‘Best Album’ countdown shows years ago and he was on it bragging about getting “laid” a lot as a result of being the ‘Nirvana baby’. Seemed pretty pleased with himself at the time.

It's not pornographic! What an absolute disgusting and bizarre thing to say! Agree he just wants money out of it. How can he have suffered in ANY way, no way did anyone recognise him from that photo 😂 Ridiculous.

Sounds like he should be taking it up with his parents

Thats not porn fgs

I have always thought there were better ways to shoot a photo like that and wondered how the baby would feel when he grew up.

We are going back to Victorian times if any depiction of human genitalia is considered pornographic.

@Balonzette

It's not pornographic! What an absolute disgusting and bizarre thing to say! Agree he just wants money out of it. How can he have suffered in ANY way, no way did anyone recognise him from that photo 😂 Ridiculous.

I do largely agree, but if a naked girl was on the front and then years later said her view was that it was pornographic, would you dismiss that too?

It's not pornographic but it was intended to be provocative and it is; it would still raise eyebrows today. It could have been shot or edited differently. Of course, then you would have lost some degree of the provocation. I suppose it depends on whether you think Nirvana and whatever they were trying to say needed that extra level of provocation by having the baby's penis clearly visible.

I'm not advocating for censorship, but it's surprising how often people try to be provocative and then get all surprised when they don't actually get universal approval.

I feel for him, that image was used on millions of pieces of merchandise and he had no control over it.
And now it probably is an image shared amongst pedos.

I remember watching a TV show about the model in the Athena man and baby poster (the man not the baby) trying to sue for more money as the image had been used far more widely than in his original release. I don't think he got anywhere.

I do largely agree, but if a naked girl was on the front and then years later said her view was that it was pornographic, would you dismiss that too?

Yes, you wouldn't even be able to see any genitals if it was a girl.

It is not pornographic.