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?

He was a child model for an obscure band. His parents were paid at that rate. His picture was used on an album cover.

The fact the album went multi platinum is neither here nor there.

He’s a perfect example of life imitating art.

People need to stop sexualising babies. That’s what’s actually grim here.

Cannot understand the fuss, it's a picture of a baby, the parents and photographer agreed a fee and it was known to be for the album cover. The person this guy should be going after is his own father for not getting a better deal (make no mistake this is about money). It's art not pornography - possibly wouldn't be done now but the shot is 30+ years old

HarrietsChariot

Your Nicola Sturgeon nudes example has different issues, not just the need of consent

If we ignore the right to privacy etc for nudes you don’t need any consent/permission to photograph someone in a public place
(Topless beach photos become a different issue which would be moral rather than legal - there are plenty paparazzi style celebrity nudes that get published, though they may or may not have been prearranged for publicity in some cases)

So if the Nicola Sturgeon photos had been legally taken with no need for consent, then it becomes the issue on what basis they are published.
You require consent / model release for ‘commercial use’ which does not cover all forms of publication. Advertise Scottish holidays with a picture of Nicola Sturgeon and it becomes commercial use
Put a picture of Nicola Sturgeon in the paper and though the paper is commercially sold the photos publication is not commercial use
Put Nicola Sturgeon on an album cover and though the cover is art there is the commercial use that the cover is ‘advertising’ the content

Many publishers will ask for model release whether it’s legally required or not, they just cover their back

If she is spotted on the beach topless and a paparazzi or anyone sends in a photo to the newspaper then it will get used with no legal need for her consent
If she’s topless in her garden and you fly a drone camera overhead then that’s an invasion of her privacy

@MurielSpriggs

It's not pornographic (or "grim")!

But it's worth money to him, hence his actions. Kerching!

1. there’s no such thing as child “porn” They’re child abuse images and 2) he was happy to pose as a grown up in the same way so it couldn’t have been that distressing for him! It IS a money grab.

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

Interesting. I always saw it as, rather than being born with it, we are manipulated into it from babyhood. It's the fish hook that made me think that. Had it just been a randomly floating banknote, I might have had your interpretation.

Although you could also see it as childhood innocence, since the baby obviously doesn't know what he's looking at.

Whatever the interpretation, I didn't think you needed the penis to make the point. Perhaps to get the provocation.

I never looked at the album cover long enough to realise. Always thought aww, how sweet.

Now I see but I wouldn't think a sexually provocative image... but the record company will cough up. He will be happy and I assume they'll need to stop selling the record with the cover. Because the connotation that it's pornography.

Yes, his first port of call should be his parents.

I read that the bloke who played the saxophone on Baker Street was paid a flat rate of something like £28. That was the rate; he accepted. The fact that it became one of the most famous saxophone bits of all time and he received no royalties is tough.

It’s like bands who complain about their contracts after they become famous . Let’s hear from some of the bands who signed contracts, dismally failed and actually got quite a good deal considering they sold hardly anything.

@MumUndone

It's not sexualised or sexually provocative in any way, and we judge things by very different standards now then we did when the album was released. Fine, pay the guy some money for using his image, but come on, it's really not pornography - and what does it say about our society today that we think it is.

Agree

but the record company will cough up

I don’t think they will, he tried to sue them before and failed.

@OchNoAgain

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. 🤷🏻‍♀️

This!

Quote from the BBC article - "However, Elden's lawyer, Robert Y. Lewis, argues that the inclusion of the dollar bill (which was superimposed after the photograph was taken) makes the minor seem "like a sex worker".

I'm sorry but that is really grasping at straws and I think really minimises the trauma of children who are abused and forced into sex work.

Money grabbing by trying to say he has suffered due to his naked image being displayed so publicly is one thing (although very suspicious given his track record for exploiting his nirvana baby status) but trying to spin this into some sort of sexual abuse/exploitation/child sex worker thing is awful. He should direct his anger at his parents for allowing his image to be used, although I expect that wouldn't give him the attention and money he wants.

@TheRebelle

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.

Wow bet you're not a fan of Michaelangelo

Whatever the interpretation, I didn't think you needed the penis to make the point. Perhaps to get the provocation.

But the penis is just because he's naked and a baby boy - it's not the point of the shot, it's not the focus of the shot, it's just there.

Ffs - what next? It's a money grab, nothing more, nothing less.

For the album cover there are the following issues:

Consent to take the photo - would not have been required in public, but as a posed model his parents gave consent as his guardians

Copyright - unless there are other contractual agreements the image then entirely belongs to the photographer
If the family paid him to take a photo of their child, or the band/record company paid him to take the photo (and there is an agreement on copyright terms) then the copyright is as per the agreement

Publication - the copyright holder can decide what they want to do with the image
They can sell use of the image for a one off payment or with fees on a rights basis

Commercial publication - Model release is required. But as a baby that would lay with his parents to represent him

The parents were paid by the photographer. That liability ends there
The photographer may have a commission on use of the image, but it was very likely that they were paid a fixed amount with a agreement on the use of the image

@DottyHarmer

Yes, his first port of call should be his parents.

I read that the bloke who played the saxophone on Baker Street was paid a flat rate of something like £28. That was the rate; he accepted. The fact that it became one of the most famous saxophone bits of all time and he received no royalties is tough.

It’s like bands who complain about their contracts after they become famous . Let’s hear from some of the bands who signed contracts, dismally failed and actually got quite a good deal considering they sold hardly anything.

I'm not sure that's fair. The record companies hold all the power in the beginning and nobody knows what's going to go platinum. If they did, we'd have nothing but albums going supernova. If a band turns out to make the executives a shitload more money than they expected, I don't think it's unfair to have a path in law to try to redress this.

@category12

Whatever the interpretation, I didn't think you needed the penis to make the point. Perhaps to get the provocation.

But the penis is just because he's naked and a baby boy - it's not the point of the shot, it's not the focus of the shot, it's just there.

I know, but it is so obviously going to be a talking point that it has to be a conscious decision what to do with it (I understand it was removed from a lot of covers). And inevitably it opens the image up to accusations of being pornographic.

It gives the picture a degree of intimacy and provocation that wouldn't be there otherwise; look how many people here think it's an issue. If it had been a girl, or he'd been shot in a slightly different pose, it wouldn't be there. If the overall point was still made, then was it necessary?

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.

This

I think we're heading into dangerous territory where any nakedness is termed 'sexually provocative'. Is changing your baby 'sexually provocative' if you don't cover their genitals at all times? Is just having genitals sexually provocative? (of course not!)
Changing tables aren't always in private cubicles. I think it is very wrong to view this as 'sexually provocative', it is very worrying in a 'cover yourself up' and take responsibility for other people's private perverted thoughts kind of way.

I always thought it was a disgusting image and judge the people who thought it appropriate badly.

I feel similar about nappy ads with naked babies but nivana is worse as its full genital... a child especially a baby cannot consent therefor using their body for gain is abhorrant.

Its equal to if I took a photo of you naked when you werent aware and posted it everywhere then used the argument of 'I asked your dad and he said it was ok'. I would be on an offenders list if I did that but its somehow ok here because he was under 18.

I never thought about it as being sexualised (had a copy of the album as a teen) but actually the genitals bit is unnecessary. They could easily have avoided that.

On the other hand, it’s a generic baby. Surely this man’s trauma is kinda parenting stuff. No one would know it was him on a day to day basis would they?

I’d be pissed off if it was me to be fair, and would probably do the same. It isn’t intended to be pornagraphic but once that image is out there no one can control how it is being used, and it wouldn’t surprise me if some people did use it as pornography

If it had been a girl, or he'd been shot in a slightly different pose, it wouldn't be there. If the overall point was still made, then was it necessary?

Well, reading the articles provided, it was one of five shots taken - so not a lot of choice and you can't repeatedly dunk the poor kid, can you? Of the others that are shown in the article, it was clearly the best one.

I think only to a pervert is it a titillating or pornographic shot, and as someone said upthread Mothercare catalogues work for perverts too.

@DottyHarmer

Yes, his first port of call should be his parents.

I read that the bloke who played the saxophone on Baker Street was paid a flat rate of something like £28. That was the rate; he accepted. The fact that it became one of the most famous saxophone bits of all time and he received no royalties is tough.

It’s like bands who complain about their contracts after they become famous . Let’s hear from some of the bands who signed contracts, dismally failed and actually got quite a good deal considering they sold hardly anything.

Yep and the guy who designed the Nike swoosh got $100. That’s how it works. Same with films - Star Wars is a good example I believe where the vast majority of the actors got a flat fee but Alec Guinness signed a deal for a percentage of profits. Funnily enough all the others didn’t then sue despite them making tens of thousands and him making tens of millions

There are a lot of people on this thread who don’t understand how contracts and consent works for child models and actors. Parents have consent rights/blocks same as for medical treatment etc. If that wasn’t the case there would be zero under-16s in anything paid.

I think even if he Hadn’t profited personally since (interviews etc) he would struggle with this case unless there’s clear proof the parents were deliberately misled when signing in the first place

It isn't sexually provocative (it is provocative but that was the point) and it isn't pornographic. But it would have been obvious that, unairbrushed, it was going to get those accusations.

I think I'd personally have edited out the penis, not because I think it makes the picture obscene, but because I think the image works absolutely fine without it (could have happened naturally in a different shot), it would have largely killed off most accusations of pornographic intention and, I guess, I would have thought the baby might appreciate it in years to come.