I think it's a bit of a reach to compare a baby to a sex worker just because there's a dollar bill in the picture, and to call it child pornography when he's just swimming naked in a pool. If that was child pornography, then everyone's family photo albums would make entire families criminals for being in possession of CP. That's not how it works.
That's not to say that it's not unfortunate that he couldn't give his consent to the picture being used to sell albums worldwide. I know I'd prefer to not have any baby pictures of me floating around everywhere, so I get that it can be distressing. I'm not sure this could fall under sexual exploitation specifically though. At most, I think he could say that it's caused him emotional distress over the years. But that could also partially be refuted since, as stated in the article, throughout the years he has expressed having positive feelings over this. Feelings change, though.
I dunno. To be honest, in an ideal world, baby pictures shouldn't be sold like this or spread online since they can't consent while they're babies. If they give their consent later as teens/adults, then sure. But I think it's unfortunate how people think it's ok to treat babies as objects, as if they won't be affected later on by these kinds of choices that other people make for them. Don't most respectful adults ask their friends etc if they can post certain pictures of them online? Why wouldn't we extend that same level of decency to babies? They're humans too?
Back then this would of been considered ok thingi get that now it would be considered child exploitation and child porn but this person in the album art would of been a nobody if they never brought up the matter nobody would ever of known it was theor cock and balls shown to the whole world if they didn't make such a damm fuss and also filing a lawsuit this late is dumb to me its likely a get rich quick scheme and also if your going to sue someone for child exploitation shouldn't you just file a police report as child exploitation is a crime anyone who isn't doing a get rich quick scheme by sueing for it would just settle it with a criminal charges which would be against the parents for allowing it and taking a pay check from it.
That's the album cover:
OK...
1. He's 30 years old. He's had 12 years to file this complaint. He didn't. There should be a statute of limitations on this.
2. His parents were compensated $200 for the cover; they accepted. That's it. It was a modeling job. You want the money: Take it up with your parents.
3. Every 5 years, this kid takes a new picture (with bathing suit) imitating his famous pose. He likely gets paid for it. Maybe he should hold out for more $ when the 35th anniversary cover picture is due.
4. File a class action with Chynna Kantner. She was the naked baby on the cover of her parent's 1971 album Sunfighter.
This is a ridiculous lawsuit and should be thrown out.
You wanna make money? Get naked and do that pose and have it in Playgirl.
No, this is a normal photo of a baby. A couple of years ago there was a discussion again about an album cover of The Scorpions, a German band, but in that case I understood the controversy. The photo on one of their albums in the 1970s was already controversial when it was published, although in continental Europe such things weren't really a big deal at that time. But times have changed, and nowadays something like that is considered absolutely not done.
But in the case of the Nirvana Baby, it's just a photo of a baby. I don't see it as sexually exploited.
Opinion
59Opinion
The man has been running around for YEARS saying "LOOK,,,,, THATS ME". It's not loke his name is on the album cover, nobody would know it is him without that. This is just a money grab.
His parents gave consent for the photo. IF it is deemed child porn or exploitation, then his parents should be charged with trafficking as they agreed to the arrangement and took him there.
This is just another attempt at someone craving attention and wanting a quick pay day I mean this is silly and I hope it's thrown out in court, I mean damn dude be serious, this is like people wanting an apology for something that happened hundreds of thousands of years ago I mean really like they were there when what ever happened did, take aunt what ever her name is syrup in the black lady with the what you call it in her head, now I weekly to go buy some not long ago and there was none on the shelves and come to find out they discontinue that brand because since one thought it was discrimination and that woman been on that bottle for a very long time and I'm sure she didn't give a damn about being on there why she's smiling now she's gone what is wrong with these people always wanting to change the damn past and now this kid about this is silly and only about money I'm sure and the public will be right there eating every second of it except this man
"He says that because there is money in the picture, his baby self was being treated as an underage sex worker and he has suffered decades of trauma"
It seems that some people will do almost anything for money, and use anything at all they perceive to be an opportunity to make more of it. It's clearly ridiculous.
It's obvious he is doing it for attention and / or money... It's a shame, Nirvana was an amazing band and their music was part of our childhood (90s generation)...
If the picture was taken the boy had parents right? he should sue them instead since they agreed to this...
It's nonesense, it will make Kurt Cobain flip around in his grave poor soul
I don't blame him. Everyone in the world knows what his penis looks like and that's just embarrassing. It's even worse embrarasment that he has mutilated genitals and everyone knows that about him too. If that was me as a baby I'd be pissed and would try getting as much money as I could.
s Yes he was but it was his father's fault. He's the one who took money and allowed his son to be naked on that album cover.
He should be suing his dad not the band.
Besides he was ok with it for 30 years and now he has a problem? I'm NOT saying that it's ok to exploit someone sexually (baby, child or adult) but this is strange.
He's literally been pretty fine with it up until a few months ago because nirvana members didn't want anything to do with his art show. It's an attention ploy.
How could this picture ever be perceived as sexual exploitation The picture is in no way sexual there is no abuse and no exchange for sexual acts and and the parent obviously consented. Where exactly is the exploitation?
The picture depicts the water birth of a child chasing a dollar just out of reach , who knows exactly what Kurt cobain was thinking when he picked that cover but perhaps he was a genius if generations of people are still giving it attention decades after his death
Sexual issue? No. An album cover of questionable taste? I saw this coming years ago. I'm surprised it's only just now become an issue that anyone cares about.
Makes me think that the rollout of Internet Blackout and the FEMA AI robot guillotines isn't going as well as planned, and so we therefore need yet another diversion, because already nobody cares about Afghanistan-gate anymore.
i think if you believe "nudity" in pictures is sexual by default, you would logically have to also believe that seeing a naked baby is inherently sexual. and if you believe that, i'd be interested in how parents are supposed to take care of their baby, if that is sexual...
Honestly no one other than his parents and the band or whoever was involved would know that that was his picture. I think it’s silly for him to sue. I mean he’s just now finding out that his picture was used for that? I don’t think so. If that’s the case, why sue now? This has clout chaser and get-rich-quick scheme written all over it.
Yes for showing his privates without his consent and if this was done today, it’s a bigger yes and his parents and Nirvana would’ve been in hot legal water…
No because he clearly was so proud of recreating this same scene over and over and telling everyone he’s the nirvana baby… suddenly he realized he was sexualized which I think he was for he had no say when he was just a baby… he should blame his parents for that
Hmm naked baby fine to show, but naked 7 year old bad?
Humans make 0 sense to me at times.
How this was allowed but yet it's criminal offence if he is older? is some weird logic.
My high IQ makes me question a lot about what normal people see as just normal. But even this feels like it should be question by everyone not just me.
If he wants to sue anyone then he should sue his parents. If I remember correctly his father sold the rights to the photo for $200 to a family friend (the photographer of that image). But then his parents are likely dirt poor so he's better off crying like a baby (no pun intended) to people with money.
Never thought about it until seeing it on the news today!!
And also…. Sorry if this is wrong… but on TV they are pixelating the penis… and I don’t even remember seeing the penis in the first place!!!
It makes it more of an issue now. I’ve had that album for 30 years and only now do I see that it’s actually not a very good pic anyway
30 years old and probably money hungry. It’s sad, this is such an epic cover, clearly epic enough for him to retake it over and over. Where was all these feelings of exploitation then? We all know he won’t win and will embarrass himself in the process, probably blow money he doesn’t have on legal fees but hey, whatever rocks his boat I guess.
Consent was given by his parents, as a minor this was what was legally necessary. The image is nonsexual. If you perceive this as sexual exploitation, and thus you are sexualizing the image, it says more about you than anything.
i think that we live now in a world where everything is wrong it seems, where was this kids parents when they allowed this to happen? how many of us have naked baby pictures as we were children? granted this was put out in the public view but also i think many people took the message the wrong way, the image meant to say the loss of innocence and loss of who we are.
I mean I'm sure I saw him on Never Mind the Buzzcocks a few years back... I mean google the episode and certainly at that point he didn't think he was exploited but hey obviously his opinion has changed since then.
I saw this article today and remembered seeing this question in the site feed.
https://news.artnet.com/art-world/spencer-elden-sues-nirvana-over-cover-image-2002468/amp-page
The guy is just annoyed that the band blew off his art show. Lame.
You can also add your opinion below!
