Naked "Nirvana Baby" Sues for Child Pornography

[JustJustWhy]

Apologies for the Daily Mail link!

Nirvana's famous naked baby SUES band for child pornography: Man - now aged 30 - who appeared on iconic cover of 1991 Nevermind album claims $2.5m damages for being 'exploited as a minor'

I can't work out if this is something perfectly acceptable as this explicit image was used without his consent or just a blatant claim for monetary gain.

AIBU:
YES - He absolutely should make this claim
NO - Just a bid for money!

www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-9924579/Nirvana-estate-Kurt-Cobain-sued-exploitation-claims-1991-Nevermind-album-cover.html?ito=uk-showbiz-newsletter&utm_source=cvdb&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Showbiz_Live%202021-08-25

Course he should go for it! It’s iconic. And they’ll settle at $50k

Didn't he do a reconstruction and sign albums a bit back? Or did I dream reading that?

YANBU! It's utterly ridiculous. No one would even know who the baby was if he kept his mouth closed.

Times are very different now. I think if he is to sue anyone it should be his parents - they would have granted permission for the image to be taken and used in the way that it was. I hope he gets fined for waisting the courts time.

He’s done reconstructions and had the album tattooed on his chest. He’s always been on the look out for different ways to become famous/make money of that one shot. This is just his next venture.
Fair play to him.

@StrongCoffeAvalanche

YANBU! It's utterly ridiculous. No one would even know who the baby was if he kept his mouth closed.

Times are very different now. I think if he is to sue anyone it should be his parents - they would have granted permission for the image to be taken and used in the way that it was. I hope he gets fined for waisting the courts time.

His parents didn't give permission and they received no payment.

Yuck at the Daily Mail for using the term 'child pornography'. Although maybe the US still uses the term? Awful.

As the litigant says, it's a matter of consent. Children can't consent.

And why shouldn't be monetise the use of his image and his parents' photograph? It made $$$$.

So how did they get the image if his parents didn't given permission?

There is no such thing as child pornography. No one should ever, ever use that phrase. It normalises it. Pornography implies consent (I know, I know, many adults do not consent either) but a child never can.

We talk about property porn or food porn - if we talk about CSE or CSA in this way it seems more acceptable somehow, and it should never, ever be acceptable.

There is only ever CSA - child sexual abuse and CSE child sexual exploitation.

WORDS MATTER

There's already a long thread here Nirvana baby to sue…
http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/amiibeingunreasonable/4332015-Nirvana-baby-to-sue

I’ve always felt uncomfortable with that album cover for this very reason- “how will that baby feel as an adult”

I’m not sure how I feel about suing someone for CSE. Surely it’s more of a prosecution thing? Otherwise we’re saying it’s ok to exploit children if we pay them?

@SciFiScream

There is no such thing as child pornography. No one should ever, ever use that phrase. It normalises it. Pornography implies consent (I know, I know, many adults do not consent either) but a child never can.

We talk about property porn or food porn - if we talk about CSE or CSA in this way it seems more acceptable somehow, and it should never, ever be acceptable.

There is only ever CSA - child sexual abuse and CSE child sexual exploitation.

WORDS MATTER

I disagree that "pornography implies consent" in any way. Revenge porn or hidden cameras in changing rooms or people taking x-ray style photos of unsuspecting women on Korean public transport don't imply consent but could definitely be deemed pornography.

The definition of the word is "printed or visual material containing the explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity, intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic or emotional feelings." Again, nothing to do with consent.

"Child pornography" follows the above definition except for the further clarification of the age of the participants. Child pornography is child sex abuse, it's a form of it. Not all CSA involves child porn. Like with rape/sexual assault - not all sexual assault is rape, but all rape is as form of sexual assault.

What the definition does show though is that the claim for the Nirvana album cover won't succeed from the child porn angle, because it doesn't fit the definition.

As I said in the other thread, I believe that the individual was exploited and should receive a decent payout.

I think it’s overdue to have some reckoning on use of others’ images instead of anyone with a phone/camera having free rein to take, use and publish other people’s personal image/life/location.

As with so, so many things, give an inch & some pricks will claim a mile & it’s not always clear who can be trusted and to what extent.

Image of naked child - consent sought/gained? lied to about covering genitals? payment offered/given? impact on said child (regardless of intent or even said child’s attempt(s) to manage impact in different ways)

If no other outcome the suit has at the very least raised the issue of consent and, given the huge amount of parents posting their children’s images online, teens and younger self & peer images, and abusive hidden camera footage from toilets/changing rooms/people’s own homes….

I think a conversation about consent wrt children’s images is the very minimum that should be happening.

@HarrietsChariot I said in my post that not all adults consent. This was meant to cover the instances you talk about (as well as trafficking and coercion).

The word porn should not be used. It normalises what has happened. That's the fundamental thing. Don't use the word porn. Only ever CSA or CSE.

I also believe that the individual was exploited but I think his case will be difficult due to the fact he recreated the image when he was older.

It might also start a ball rolling and there might be other similar cases.

*His parents didn't give permission and they received no payment#

Weren't they paid $200?

The BBC article says the were paid $200 and were friends of someone involved. It also quotes past interviews where the chap had a totally different take on the 'fame'. Hes also recreated the cover a couple of times. Think hes down on luck and trying for a payout tbh.

I always thought the album cover was distasteful. A baby penis is never necessary to promote music.
I've seen him pop up over the years in "where are they now?" Type articles. Fair play to him, I hope he gets a decent payout.

If he really wasn't happy, why has he recreate the cover or given interviews about how awesome it was to be the baby in the photo?
He's a loser who wants easy money.

I think he's entitled to change his mind about how he feels about millions of people seeing him naked.

He is after the money, simple as that

@Janaih

I think he's entitled to change his mind about how he feels about millions of people seeing him naked.

He is. But he cannot recreate covers and make a big show of him being the baby and then complain. If he kept his mouth shut, no one would really know who he was. He wanted to get naked to recreate one of the covers, the photographer said no. Doesn't seem that embarrassed about showing his genitals does he?

Sooooooooooooo many children are going to be suing their own parents in years to come for instagramming/tik-toking/you-tubing their innocent lives or just sharing snippets of them crying or sitting on the potty - I kid you not, I have seen this - on the internet.

I look forward to seeing how it rolls out with interest.

I think it's fine that he's after the money. That album generated millions of dollars of income for the band and record company, why shouldn't he get some of it? The cover is iconic, and he made that possible. A cover with less stand-out appeal would have reduced sales. Many people got rich/richer from the success of the album, why shouldn't he?

His parents agreed and were paid £200 he was then given a platinum record and a teddy, the band at the time were not big and his mother and father were in the pool with him, if he wants to sue anyone it should be his parents for agreeing to it, he also did quite a few photo shoots since, its just a huge money grab

I think it's absolutely disgusting that a picture of a naked baby was used as an album cover. Absolutely vile. No child's genitals should used as advertisements.

Although reading that he's publicised it himself and tried to make money off it already maybe he is just making a grab at some money.

I always thought that picture was a visual metaphor with the innocence of the baby and the dollar on a string as though we are all born and then hooked by capitalism which was the vibe at the time iirc.
I think child trafficking is a bit strong and the image isn't sexual imo.
However if his parents weren't paid for the rights to the picture then he probably is fair to claim. Though when it was taken I daresay the band were much less Rick and might have only paid a few quid.
Millions for the picture is only with the benefit of hindsight isn't it.