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

Rick=rich

I can see he might be annoyed that his family only got $200 dollars and didn't negotiate better rights, he could have been set for life, or have paid for college at least.

But he's recreated it before,with no animosity towards the original photograph. It's obviously just a money grab.

According to him his parents were paid 200 dollars and were asked by a friend (the photographer I think). Several pictures of babies, girls and boys were taken but his got picked for the album cover. He has also recreated the picture albeit with pants on and given interviews about it. Sounds like he is just after the money and I agree with other posters he should be suing his parents if anyone.

@Chicchicchicchiclana

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.

Totally agree, once the ball starts rolling it will go off - especially where the content has been monetised.

I think I'm uncomfortable for his reasoning - suing on the grounds of child pornography. Had he have done this the minute he was old enough to understand then fair play. He has capitalised on in in the meantime though so to sue on these grounds now almost makes a mockery of the issue.

Please stop using the phrase "child pornography".

Had he not (positively) engaged throughout adulthood with the image/band, I'd be behind him on this. No one should have images of their naked body shared without giving informed consent. He clearly couldn't consent and it's not something (imo) that a parent should be able to give consent for.

However, it appears that he has attempted to make money from his connection to this for years.

It will be interesting how it plays out.

I think I would be very creeped out to think the world’s peado creeps have been leering at my genitals for 30 years and will be for all time.

So I say yes he should go for it, and maybe it will lead to more regulation in the industry.

It was completely unnecessary for the band to use a shot of the genitals on the cover. Strategic angling would have got the same effect.

Idiots.

The album cover, iconic as it is, has always made me feel a bit icky and had he not recreated it 3 times, the last time being 5 years ago, I would possibly have some sympathy.

But given the 30th anniversary of the album is next month it strikes me that no one asked him to do it again this year.

Absolutely ridiculous

@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

ALL OF THIS ^^^

OMG OP stop using that awful phrase.

There is nothing sexual about a naked baby.

For eons, cherubs (generally depicted naked) were used symbolically to represent innocence.

Also, you cannot recognise an adult a baby picture.

It is just a naked (excuse the pun) grab for money.

@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

Could to agree more! I've been fighting this language for about 20 years. The words matter. Certain words give validity to abhorrent practices and behaviours. We should challenge them when and where we can

Still chasing that dollar on a hook. What a self fulfilling prophecy that cover turned out to be...

@JustJustWhy

I think I'm uncomfortable for his reasoning - suing on the grounds of child pornography. Had he have done this the minute he was old enough to understand then fair play. He has capitalised on in in the meantime though so to sue on these grounds now almost makes a mockery of the issue.

Why aren't people allowed to change their minds about this sort of thing?

@Chicchicchicchiclana

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.

Agree 100% I’ve been saying this for years the whole situation is a ticking time bomb. Privacy laws are going to change drastically in the future.

He did a Guardian interview a few years ago where he gushed about how wonderful his life had been as a result of that cover. Yet suddenly he's saying it's ruined his life.

Even if, IF, he was ok with it in the past, he didnt have a choice and plenty of people change their minds about things. It took 10 years before i realised an experience i had was actually sexual assault. Maybe he now feels the same.

@Clawdy

He did a Guardian interview a few years ago where he gushed about how wonderful his life had been as a result of that cover. Yet suddenly he's saying it's ruined his life.

Yeah, I just heard on radio he is suing for "life time damages".

@TheReluctantPhoenix

There is nothing sexual about a naked baby.

For eons, cherubs (generally depicted naked) were used symbolically to represent innocence.

Also, you cannot recognise an adult a baby picture.

It is just a naked (excuse the pun) grab for money.

Well, then they could have put a painted picture of an infant on the cover then, couldn't they.

Can you really not see the difference between a naked child being photographed and used as a globally recognised image vs. A painting of a mythical winged baby painted on a ceiling?

He attends conventions and sells signed copies of that photo for $60 a pop. If he now wants it classed as "child pornography" then he should be arrested for distribution.

@RealBecca

Even if, IF, he was ok with it in the past, he didnt have a choice and plenty of people change their minds about things. It took 10 years before i realised an experience i had was actually sexual assault. Maybe he now feels the same.

Yep, feels like wandering into dangerous territory here regarding previous "implied consent".

@BernadetteRostankowskiWolowitz,

Nope, not really. They are both artistic images, neither sexualised in any way.

We must be living in a pretty sad world of you look at a picture of a happy baby in the water and think that there is something wrong with it.

@PollyPepper

OMG OP stop using that awful phrase.

Those were his words. OP is literally quoting the reason he has given for his lawsuit.