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

Thing is, imagine a woman is filmed without her consent and the image put on PornHub. It's cut off so you cannot see her face. Some bloke makes a load of cash off it.

Then, she later poses for bikini shots etc but not showing her bits.

Can she not later say she didn't consent to those other more graphic shots?

Oh fgs - he clearly needs to get over himself - I was 20 at the time and the image represented nothing more than an innocent baby swimming after a Dollar bill - The cover of one of the most brilliant albums ever made for a legendary band - He is bloody ridiculous - He is blatantly going after (a substantial amount of) cash - he only recently seems to have woken up to the fact he was exploited.

From a BBC News article in 2016

‘ Spencer Elden was the baby on the front of the 1991 Nirvana album Nevermind and to mark the anniversary he's made the iconic picture again. But this time clothes were involved. "I said to the photographer, 'Let's do it naked.' But he thought that would be weird, so I wore my swim shorts," Spencer told the New York Post. "It's cool but weird to be part of something so important that I don't even remember. "It's strange that I did this for five minutes when I was four months old and it became this really iconic image."

He needs to wake the fuck up and spare a thought for children who are subject to sex trafficking etc - pathetic!

Yes, and we all need to stop re-spouting it!

This:

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.

It's about money and nothing else, absolutely shameful.

What damages? He's made money if anything and the vast majority people wouldn't recognise him now.

Nothing has changed since that photo. He's still chasing that dollar.

@SionnachRua

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

🤣🤣🤣 so true

He should be well compensated for the use of his image. Can’t believe they didn’t have consent from his parents?! That’s horrendous.

I include in my judgement anyone who makes their children the main theme of their online life. So this includes the Sam and Billie Faiers of this world, and all the less well known Instagram families.

Aimee Osbourne was properly switched on all those years ago. I really doubt Jack and Kelly now think it's great their parents did that show. They may not be angry enough to be litigious but there will be others growing up who are.

Why is he suing Kobains estate but not his parents who gave concent, or the record label who used the image, or the production Company or the advertising Company?
I totally understand wanting paid for the use of an image but it seems like a total attention grab

[quote TheReluctantPhoenix]@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.[/quote]
I dont look and see something "wrong". I see a human who has had their naked body shared globally. Without their consent. An actual person exists.

Otherwise why seek permission for any picture taken of anyone (clothed or otherwise). Just snap away and share share share. Permission? Pah.

Attention seeking and money grabbing

Please change your thread title! Child pornography is a very offensive and now outdated term.

He has done several shots over the years recreating that picture, and joking about wearing pants this time. Strange how things change!

For everyone urging me to change the title and stop using the phrase "child pornography" I agree, it's a terrible term but in the US that is the terms he is suing under, which is part of the problem and part of the debate, surely.

Is he? Or is that the term the media are using? What does the actual court wording say?

What does the actual court wording say?
This.

www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/nirvana-lawsuit.pdf

“Defendants knowingly produced, possessed, and advertised commercial child pornography depicting Spencer, and they knowingly received value in exchange for doing so,” according to the lawsuit, which was filed on Tuesday in federal court in California."

$200 dollars doesn't seem a lot now, but at the time no one knew it was going to become the most iconic album cover ever made.

No, he's been absolutely ridiculous! He's definitely only doing it for the money! He's recreated the pictures dozens of times.

His parents didn't give permission and they received no payment
I have read many years ago and also more recently that the photographer was friends with the lads das. It was all a bit impromptu and he gave them $200. I dont think any one realised how big Nirvana would be one.
The lad dined out on that story for years and if he never mentioned it at every chance no one would have known he was the baby. He has been to conventions selling autographs !

I think he's entitled to change his mind about how he feels about millions of people seeing him naked
More like he is entitled to change the way he feels now that lawyers have whispered compo in his ear!

It is not really seeing ‘him’ naked. He was four months old and a generic baby.

As the poster above says, the only reason it is associated with him is that he loved the fame.

I can see him hoping for a free couple if hundred thousand in settlement. If it ever gets to court, it will be laughed out of it.

Blatant money grab.

His parents didn't give permission and they received no payment
Favour for a friend for $200
www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2015/jan/16/thats-me-picture-spencer-elden-nirvana-nevermind
He has changed his tune since feeling rejected when wanting his own art project promoted.