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?

@cookingisoverrated

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

So what? It's his body and his image.

He wants $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ that’s all.

It's not CSA or pornographic. It's a naked baby. This guy is ridiculous.

It must be very upsetting if the biggest achievement of your life was when you were too young to talk, and it's all been downhill since their

@Kanaloa

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.

Neither do I.

The point is, no baby or child can consent to having their image used at all.

Except that's not true!

So what? It's his body and his image.

He has used the band and album cover to promote himself.
Maybe they will counter sue.

I don’t see what nirvana did wrong. The parents agreed. If he’s not happy, he can take it up with them.

I doubt many people would recognise this one for example.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Utero

Because it wasn't their breakthrough album and it doesn't have their best-known songs on it.

This reeks of money grabbing. I have seen an interview with this guy where he spoke of how pleased he was to have been part of such an iconic album/time.

I do find it funny that when he "recreated" the cover at 25 years old (not very well imo, arms in the wrong place and he can't help but look directly into the camera) he wanted to do it naked (it was in an NYPost article). The photographer told him to keep his trunks on. Less sweet and innocent on a 25 year old than a baby.

Why shouldn't he seek money when his image was used to bring a lot of it in for other people?

I did not work in that field but have friends who are psychologists and one specialises in rehabilitating sex offenders.

Any picture of a child can have a sexual element for child sex offenders I remember reading how a raid found as well as high category pictures of child abuse many Mothercare catalogues.

There is nothing remotely sexual in that picture for the posters on this thread but I guarantee that paedophiles will have used that image.

@Auntienumber8

I did not work in that field but have friends who are psychologists and one specialises in rehabilitating sex offenders.

Any picture of a child can have a sexual element for child sex offenders I remember reading how a raid found as well as high category pictures of child abuse many Mothercare catalogues.

There is nothing remotely sexual in that picture for the posters on this thread but I guarantee that paedophiles will have used that image.

Does that mean the babies and children in Mothercare catalogues should be able to sure Mothercare?

sue

Sorry, not RTFT, but here's the photographer's account of how the album cover was shot.

flashbak.com/how-i-shot-the-cover-to-nirvanas-nevermind-419252/

@User135644

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

It’s a representation of greed being such a part of human nature that we are born with it.

If you sold me the nude photos of Nicola Sturgeon

Hold the bus! There are nude photos of Nicola Sturgeon floating about?

He's done multiple interviews where he's said he thought it was great and he's slept with loads of women due to the fame. He also has Nevermind tattooed across his chest.... Sounds like he's really suffering from the effects of his picture being used....

Paedophiles will always find content to fulfil their fantasies. Some of them will do this from completely innocent places, maybe they sit watching CBeebies for example? Who knows.

The point is this guy isn’t actually mentally scarred in any way by this, quite the opposite. He’s broke and he wants some money. He also clearly wants attention and perhaps infamy.

He’s quite a good looking guy so it’s a shame he’s such a desperate attention seeker, perhaps he could have pursued a career in modelling then he might not be so salty about an image of him his parents sold in 1990 for $200.

To be honest I'd be more angry with the parents who had him circumcised (unless it was for medical reasons of course)

Seriously? FO

I don't understand why you're offended by the comment above. IMO nobody should have parts of their genitals chopped off against their will.

It’s a representation of greed being such a part of human nature that we are born with it.

Consolidated by the baby still apparently chasing the money in adulthood! 😂

I feel for him, he couldn’t consent at the time and when he was a young adult recreating the photos the full implications of having your nude baby photo reproduced in the hundreds of thousands may not have been apparent to him. Regardless of whether we middle aged women think it is pornographic or not there will have been someone, somewhere who does and who has used it as such. I certainly would not be comfortable with a naked picture of me being out in the world without me having any control of it, whether people knew it was me or not.

I don’t have any nude pictures of my children at all, it’s not necessary, my mantra is in all photos of my kids they must be clothed and happy and it must be a photo I’d be happy to have of myself. We have a responsibility to our children and his parents failed in theirs.

Ffs no.

Whilst I agree NOW it would be weird and just not appropriate that is because of the shift in society and cultural norms / expectations. Not because it’s a particularly explicit photo.

In the late 80s and early 90s it was a different time. We did not view everything as sexualised.

I’m not suggesting child pornography wasn’t an issue because clearly is was.
But this photo is not sexualised in the slightest.

The parent made the choice on behalf of the baby. If they gave consent for him to be photographed and then used on the album then he should be suing them and not the band.

We make choices on behalf of our children every day, we have to. They can’t do it themselves. They gave consent, end of.

Seems like an obvious money grab, especially given that he's recreated the photo as an adult. If he is bothered by it, why draw more attention to the fact that it's him in the photo?

It's not pornographic, but they should have done something to obscure his genitals. I do look askance at people who sell nude photos of their baby. It's his father he should be angry with, imo.