Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

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:
AntiSocialDistancer · 25/08/2021 10:01

@RoxytheRexy

I think I agree with him. And even if it is a money grab then I’m ok with that too. I’m sure the record company can afford it
I completely agree. It's one of the most iconic album covers and undoubtedly brought Nirvana a lot of money.

I don't mind if he wants a slice of that, and yes I agree that it's unpleasant to have your penis photo plastered globally and there is no legitimate way he could have consented.

MurielSpriggs · 25/08/2021 10:01

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?

I don't understand why you think it would be different?

category12 · 25/08/2021 10:04

I completely agree. It's one of the most iconic album covers and undoubtedly brought Nirvana a lot of money.

It's an iconic cover only because the band were iconic. The album cover didn't make them successful. If they'd disappeared without trace so would the album cover.

BeauxRingarde · 25/08/2021 10:05

I think some of these comments begin to prove his claims though....

3ormorecharactersss · 25/08/2021 10:06

Hasn’t been got a huge never mind tattoo? And he’s down lots of interviews saying how much he loved being that baby and he said it had been lucrative for him?

It’s a tough one because I’d love to be that baby! I’d be so damned proud. And I’ve never seen it as pornographic, same as I’ve never seen any art that contains nudity as pornographic. However, it’s his image so I guess it’s his feeling on the subject matter.

I highly doubt he will win though. Money was exchanged and signatures provided.

QuirkyUsername · 25/08/2021 10:07

A) It was airbrushed out for years and years. You may not have noticed it because it wasn't there for a long time.

B) The reason it has potentially 'damaged' his reputation is because he's the one yelling from the roof tops it was him

C) He was never concerned about it being pornographic while he was earning money with interviews and recreating the shots

D) It's not sexually suggestive and anyone who thinks it is perhaps needs to have a good look at themselves.

3ormorecharactersss · 25/08/2021 10:08

there is no legitimate way he could have consented.

But is it the record labels fault or his parents? Once they’ve signed away the use of the photo, do they get any say? Genuine question, I don’t know anything about it.

DrSbaitso · 25/08/2021 10:08

If I had been that baby, I think I would be feeling very uncomfortable now. I may not be recognisable but that isn't really the point.

Provocative images so often rest on the bodies of those who aren't in control of the narrative or situation.

FilthyforFirth · 25/08/2021 10:10

His beef is surely with his parents and not the band. His image wasnt stolen but given by his parents. Money grabbing imo.

As for the claim that the dollar bill makes him 'look like a sex worker' Hmm

HarrietsChariot · 25/08/2021 10:11

I hope he wins.

It's not pornographic, it's not child porn (although will undoubtedly have been "used" by paedophiles). It's just nudity.

However - a nude photograph of him has been used without his consent (because obviously he couldn't have consented at that age). That would normally be a serious criminal offence, just because someone is a baby doesn't change that. If someone took a nude picture of me that I consented to (as they have Grin) that wouldn't allow then to then plonk it on an album cover and related merchandise without my consent to do so.

I'm surprised that so many people on this thread seem to think child exploitation is fine, to be honest.

AntiSocialDistancer · 25/08/2021 10:15

@category12

I completely agree. It's one of the most iconic album covers and undoubtedly brought Nirvana a lot of money.

It's an iconic cover only because the band were iconic. The album cover didn't make them successful. If they'd disappeared without trace so would the album cover.

I doubt many people would recognise this one for example.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Utero

category12 · 25/08/2021 10:15

there is no legitimate way he could have consented.

Effectively no baby/child model or baby/child actor can consent in that case.

So are we for barring babies from appearing in soap operas and modelling clothes, nappies and toys? Having their bottoms kissed in nappy adverts (actually I'm quite in favour of stopping that Grin) ?They can't consent, after all.

Howshouldibehave · 25/08/2021 10:16

@HarrietsChariot

I hope he wins.

It's not pornographic, it's not child porn (although will undoubtedly have been "used" by paedophiles). It's just nudity.

However - a nude photograph of him has been used without his consent (because obviously he couldn't have consented at that age). That would normally be a serious criminal offence, just because someone is a baby doesn't change that. If someone took a nude picture of me that I consented to (as they have Grin) that wouldn't allow then to then plonk it on an album cover and related merchandise without my consent to do so.

I'm surprised that so many people on this thread seem to think child exploitation is fine, to be honest.

So, if his parents were happy and consented, does that mean nothing?

These are the same parents that this 28 year old are still living with, I presume.

anon12345678901 · 25/08/2021 10:16

@HarrietsChariot

I hope he wins.

It's not pornographic, it's not child porn (although will undoubtedly have been "used" by paedophiles). It's just nudity.

However - a nude photograph of him has been used without his consent (because obviously he couldn't have consented at that age). That would normally be a serious criminal offence, just because someone is a baby doesn't change that. If someone took a nude picture of me that I consented to (as they have Grin) that wouldn't allow then to then plonk it on an album cover and related merchandise without my consent to do so.

I'm surprised that so many people on this thread seem to think child exploitation is fine, to be honest.

No one thinks child exploration is fine. But his parents consented, so his issue should be with them. They were able to consent for him as he was a baby, and they did.
HarrietsChariot · 25/08/2021 10:17

@3ormorecharactersss

there is no legitimate way he could have consented.

But is it the record labels fault or his parents? Once they’ve signed away the use of the photo, do they get any say? Genuine question, I don’t know anything about it.

Both. The parents shouldn't have signed away the rights, because they didn't have the authority to do so. The record label should have known that the parents couldn't sign away the rights.

If you sold me the nude photos of Nicola Sturgeon and told me she'd consented to me publishing them, I would still get into trouble when I published them if it turned out she hadn't agreed, because a reasonable person would demand to see her signed waiver and I didn't.

A child can't give their informed consent - that's why they're not allowed credit cards. The argument that a parent can authorise nude pictures of their children to be exploited commercially is clearly nonsensical - much more nonsensical than a parent authorising their child to take a loan out.

Peacrock · 25/08/2021 10:17

@MurielSpriggs

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?

I don't understand why you think it would be different?

Invariably some would see it as different, its naive to think otherwise. I don't think it's pornographic either, but whether he is saying it for the money (likely) or its how he feels, feels a bit weird to be dismissive.
User135644 · 25/08/2021 10:17

What was the point of that album cover? Why would you want to put that on?

CuriousaboutSamphire · 25/08/2021 10:17

I'm surprised that so many people on this thread seem to think child exploitation is fine, to be honest. Mmmm!

Maybe it's because there is a middle ground, somewhere between an urge to make nudity legally defined as disgusting, pornographic and harmful and actual exploitation of kids.

That you see fit to label this 'exploitation' cheapens the very real harm done to many other kids.

eu.usatoday.com/story/opinion/nation-now/2018/01/30/sex-trafficking-column/1073459001/

Kanaloa · 25/08/2021 10:18

To be honest I don’t see why a baby would need to have to their bottom kissed to advertise a nappy? And I wouldn’t like to see child models naked at any point to advertise clothing, toys, etc. All these things can be modelled by a child wearing clothing.

CuriousaboutSamphire · 25/08/2021 10:19

@User135644

What was the point of that album cover? Why would you want to put that on?
So many links in this thread left unread!!!
cookingisoverrated · 25/08/2021 10:19

He's just looking for a payout; he's been trying to profit off of it money and publicity -wise himself for years.

chaosrabbitland · 25/08/2021 10:20

hes just a money grabber . i hope he doesnt get a penny to be frank , so fed up of this stuff , as im sure hes already benefited from the picture in the first place ,

Cam2020 · 25/08/2021 10:20

Yes, I saw that. To be fair I’d hate if it was baby me naked on album covers, posters, t-shirts.

But who would know? Unless you went around trying to sue people and drawing attention to yourself, of course.

VeryLongBeeeeep · 25/08/2021 10:20

@Youcanchangeyournamebut

I agree it's not provocative or sexualised, but I do think it's a bit grim to share a picture of your naked child, without their consent, with millions of people. Although maybe I'm judging by today's standards which is perhaps a bit unfair. In my view it's akin to posting a nude shot of your child on social media, which in my circles is certainly not the done thing.
Re the "millions of people" point: I guess at the point the album cover was planned, no one knew Nevermind was going to become the global and cultural phenomenon it is now. At the time Nirvana were just one of a number of grunge bands with one album behind them that had failed to make either the US Top 75 or the UK Top 30. It could have easily sunk without trace on release.

I'm as anti-images of CSA as they come, but in this instance...really? No one would even know the Nirvana baby was this guy if he didn't keep milking it. As others have said, if there's anyone for him to be cross with it's his father.

chaosrabbitland · 25/08/2021 10:21

@cookingisoverrated

He's just looking for a payout; he's been trying to profit off of it money and publicity -wise himself for years.
thats sad really , you would think hed just get a bloody job if he hasnt already got one and just get on with leading his life , still i suppose some people are desperate