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?

If he's been recreating the image, perhaps DGC Records should sue him for copyright infringement.

His parents consented at the time, which they are legally permitted to do and which happens every day with every parent - we are all constantly making decisions on behalf of our children.

He knows that which is why he is trying to focus on the picture itself, asserting that it is somehow fundamentally obscene.

I don’t think that is true, it’s not remotely sexualised. Go to almost any beach in the world and there is a good chance of seeing naked babies and children playing. I would say it is considered perfectly acceptable by a majority of people that swimming infants and children can do so publicly without costumes far more freely than adolescents or adults. The image on the album is consistent with that attitude.

Personally I’d have been delighted to be part of one of the most iconic albums of all time. It seems they were too.

He's made comments in recent years about his conflicting feelings over the picture. I can see why, when approached by Rolling Stone or the like, he might be persuaded to go along with recreations but still not feel quite the same way about it as everyone else did.

I do agree it's not pornographic at all, but maybe that's the only legal angle that gives him a potential case, if his feelings about it aren't enough.

On the one hand, I doubt it'll get anywhere. On the other, he might get an out of court settlement.

www.theguardian.com/music/2021/aug/25/baby-on-nevermind-cover-sues-nirvana-over-child-sexual-exploitation

Violating child pornography laws? Funny how such a well known album can slip under the radar...

Also, it's slightly amazing how he's decided (after previous recreations and interviews where he's said it opened doors for him) it's now an issue for him just in time for the 30th anniversary of an astonishingly successful album

His parents gave consent on his behalf and they got paid for it. No one knew the album would become the juggernaut it did. Nirvana's first album sold less than 50,000 copies at the time Nevermind was released so why would anyone think the follow up would sell 30 million copies?

If he's suing anyone it should be his parents. But I suppose they don't have money.

@Sunshinealligator

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.

Highly doubt they’ll cough up and the album cover won’t be pulled. They may edit out the genitals, but this guy doesn’t have a legal leg to stand on I don’t think? In the eyes on the law his parents consent on his behalf and that’s that. They were paid the correct rate at the time, you don’t get royalties unless you’ve contractually agreed them.

I'd hate to have photos of myself as a baby naked for everyone to see

I’d genuinely love it! I’d Iove to be that baby.

It’s interesting that in an interview he said he’d tried to reach out to Nirvana in the past and they hadn’t gotten back to him.

All the years I've owned this album I never really looked well enough to see that it wasn't a foot. Hmm. I guess every day is a school day.

As for the story? I disagree it's a pornographic shot. It's an interesting, artistic photograph (though it's a shame it shows the penis). The dad was already paid by his photographer friend. Just because the kid thinks he should have got more than $200 is irrelevant. His parents made the decision when they had the legal rights to. Payment was made and the deal was done. No backsies, fella! Sorry.

If he's been recreating the image, perhaps DGC Records should sue him for copyright infringement.

That really.

He has dined out on it long enough. Used it as a pulling line.

Going after more is the behaviour of an arse.

@category12

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.

And many, many people will indeed recognise that album cover

And many, many people will indeed recognise that album cover

Yes indeed. I did instantly.

The argument that It's one of the most iconic album covers and undoubtedly brought Nirvana a lot of money. is just flawed - well, yes it is iconic, but only because that album is iconic. Nobody saw the album cover and ran out to buy it on that basis alone - they heard the music, saw the band, then they bought the album.

Agreed category12

You don’t buy an album to look at the cover. You buy it for the music.

As iconic as the cover is, the music is the reason people bought it.

At least it will get people thinking more about child's right to privacy. Just because you can exploit your child's image for profit doesn't mean it's morally right.

Nah. He's still the same money grabbing baby that he was 30 years ago.

I just spoke to a lawyer who works in this sort of area. He said that the old argument had absolutely no legs as the man’s claim would have had to have been against his own parents. So he has eventually found a lawyer who has come up with the “pornography” angle. His recreation of the cover and the fact that he hasn’t complained before will not help his case, though.

Personally, I think he’s full of shit. His parents allowed the image to be used whether they signed a waiver or not. They got paid, albeit not much. He’s recreated it as an adult. And now he just wants money. I don’t hold much with people like that.

I always thought it was rather a lovely cover. My guess is it's a way for him to realise some easy money ie: not having to work for it. Is nakedness pornographic now?

Shouldn't he be suing his parents?

The guy is an absolute money-grabbing, attention-seeking twat. Like other folks have said above, he's been dining out on that image his entire life, and only recently decided to sue as he wanted Nirvana to collaborate on something with him and the manager didn't say yes straight away - something like that (it's online). So he had a sulk.

It's crap as well for kids that have genuinely been violated. It's up there with women who cry rape for attention, people won't take real victims seriously.

Did somebody really link to In Utero and say not many people would recognise that album cover?!

🤣🤣🤣

For years I thought that it was an umbilical cord (edited it). The photo looked (to me) to represent humans are chasing money from the moment they are born - hence the baby swimming after cash right after it’s born.

Also if we are going down this route then there are a lot of paintings hanging in galleries around the world that will also be deemed as inappropriate and pornographic when really they are just art.

www.dolly.com.au/lifestyle/im-the-nirvana-baby-9746

[quote Emmelina]www.dolly.com.au/lifestyle/im-the-nirvana-baby-9746[/quote]
Such a cringey interview because he’s been dining off it for life but is trying to make out it’s not a big deal.

[quote Emmelina]www.dolly.com.au/lifestyle/im-the-nirvana-baby-9746[/quote]
He was 17 at the time of that interview.

Get over it, FFS!!

He did at 25 too.

They picked the right baby for the money chasing for sure.