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.
hey can i get your opinion on a topic in your dm?
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.
It’s his foot they pranked you.
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.
hey can i get your opinion on a topic in your dm?
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
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.
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.
Afghanistan: the exact same country your Lord & Savior made a deal with the Taliban to evacuate.
I voted for Don Blankenship. But keep embarrassing yourself. It's amusing.
FEMA AI robot guillotines? What the... ? Is this the latest batshit crazy conspiracy theory from the faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar right?
Don Blankenship. LOL!
@Rachelspiks : FEMA has only had it in their literature for quite some time. Like, since 2003. Celeste Solum, who WORKED FOR THEM, has only been warning us about it since she left in 2004. The guillotines were purchased around 2013 in Georgia, then vanished. They resurfaced in Texas late last year, at a FEMA center.
They've just been hauling them around, waiting for the green light. Also, Tennessee passed Executive Order 83, authorizing concentration camps for dissidents of governor Bill Leed's policies. The Devil is walking around in plain view, and you ladies STILL can't see him!
What is this, Mentally Ill Person Day?
Yes. I was right then.
www.snopes.com/.../
There are no 'FEMA concentration camps'. The devil doesn't exist either. He's a purely fictional character. There are no ghosts, spirits, gods, demons, or anything else of that nature. I really do wish that GROWN ADULTS would stop believing in invisible friends. I mean, don't most children grow out of that phase?
@Rachelspiks No. These are the "grown adults" who join QAnon. :(
You're right. I stand corrected :(
@Rachelspiks : Then why did Bill Leed sign authorization for them to exist in Tennessee? And Snopes, which is Soros-owned, is your denier of choice? Guess I found the NPC in the room.
"The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled, was convincing you he doesn't exist." - Kaiser Soze
Too many NDE sufferers would say that the Devil is very real. But if you insist on taking him as a metaphor, those trying really hard to be him walk around with their agendas in plain view. And you don't see that either. Because you don't want to. It would glitch your programming.
@ stupiduglydonkey: Q was controlled opposition. After its real founder was done in by the CIA, it was taken over, and used for an IIA. Their goal was to convince anyone gullible that they shouldn't invest in WiFi frequency jammers and polling booths, in the off chance that companies like AT&T might break the law. That they shouldn't get together with their local sheriffs to discuss the constitution's decrees about when the lesser magistrates need to step in. That they should do nothing at all, because "Trump has a plan." And something something about prophetic visions from God (that were obviously not from God), something something about storms and krackens, etc.
The minute they started saying "trust the plan," those who really see the Dark Thrones at work to bring about the Beast of the Sea's reign knew that Q had been compromised. The jig for them was up. And they abandoned Q.
Only the die-hard stayed on Q's feed, determined to believe in the Second Coming of Trump (rather than Christ), and believe in the Kracken and the Storm coming. Q became a cult. Sons of Liberty Media warned against it months in advance. As in, February of 2020 in advance. Millie Weaver warned in a video about the CIA and IIA campaigns (basically, psy-ops.) She named names of the parties that Snowden tried to indict years earlier, including John Brennan - who was selling your data to China through a server in Germany. She was kidnapped and tortured in jail for releasing her video: "ShadowGate." Your ingratitude will be addressed on the Last Day.
What's wrong with Snopes? And don't give me that crap about G. Soros apparently being behind every master-conspiracy on the planet (and in league with the aliens, and the devil too). There are other billionaires who are far more influential than he. I don't consider NDE's to be reliable either; they're just the visions of people who are undergoing trauma, or who are under the influence of mind-altering substances.
Glitch in programming? NPC's? Oh dear, you really have gone off the deep end! :D
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...
i think everyone who sees this picture and thinks of it as sexual is a sick freak and needs to be admitted to a psychologist.
Amen!
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.
Yeah but most would be at least tempted to get money out of the situation if they knew they could get a lot.
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.
The grown baby is the one making the allegations of sexual exploitation.
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 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 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.
No, this guy clearly failed at life and now he wants a piece of the only pie he has left. I don't know if the band paid his parents any money, but they should have. Either way, this guy is just exploiting the band. But I knew this day would come. When even naked babies is considered pornography, which makes every parent in American in possession of kiddie porn. Ain't that a fine kettle of fish. How is the man going to enforce that.
I find it funny that baby is still chasing the dollar bill...
It sounds to me he needs money. Just like he did as a baby in that swimming pool lol The sad thing Is he isn’t going to get shit considering it isn’t the bands fault , it’s his parents fault , such a moron
Makes me wonder how many attorney contact forms the guy filled out before finding one to help him with this case. I highly doubt there wasn’t written consent for use of the image, it was the album cover for —— sake, it wouldn’t have made it until production. Guy is desperate.
First of all, it’s not Kurt’s fault that this grown baby is a struggling artist. Also, if he was sooo affected then he should have filed complaints earlier maybe even as early as BEFORE the 10th Anniversary picture of the album that he looked very happy in.
Oh I’m sure anyone who bought a nevermind CD was suddenly more prone to become a pedo because of that image. Omg.
But I’m going to tell you a little know histórical fact that will make everything okay. Kurt Cobain was a early supporter of gay rights. He even performed a concert in tandem with a gay rights rally.
You see he’s off limits now. That should make it all better. I guess if that baby now grown adult wants to sue they can sue.
I don't know what gayness has to do with anything but OK dude. :)
@supercutebutt: GLSEN and NAMBLA are the same organization under two different names. Always have been, since Kinsey and Mr. Green in Germany slithered the Earth, raping kids with impunity.
Kurt was foolish to support the Prolapse Mafia. And has all eternity to reflect on how foolish. But it's neither here nor there.
Anonymous above has one valid point: most pedos don't become so because they got turned on once by the "Nevermind" album cover. Therefore, the Nirvana Baby has very flimsy grounds to sue anyone. I have a strong suspicion the judge will throw this one out.
Whatever judgment awaited Kurt Cobain, he already received it immediately after dying. It's too late for us to go back and try to reverse it now. The kid will accomplish nothing. It'd be like trying to resurrect Harvey Milk (an actual cho-mo), just to beat him to death yet again. Totally pointless.
@ObscuredBeyond exactly. Now if the kid wants to sue for using his likeness when he was a baby maybe he will get some cash out of it. But going out of your way to do this cancel culture, book burning & cancel culture bullshit just makes me want to slap some across the face. Seriously how many wokester fans are Nirvana fans nowadays? Probably some far leftist SJW college kid saw an old Nirvana CD in his parents storage and immediately dreamed up a way to feel victimized by it.
Lots of adults didn’t like Kurt Cobain when he was in his hey day. But I never once heard anyone say a peep about his the nevermind record art. They just saw it as a figment of Kurt Cobain’s drugged delusional yet artistically genius mind (you got to hand it to him he was talented).
But again stress the fact he supported gay rights back in the 90s and he will quickly be turned from scumbag to hero in our culture.
You mean "financially exploited" as it's about money for picture rights.
But the case will fall short (pun not intended), hence why he's trying for the "sexual" angle. But it's still no ball (pun not intended)
I wouldn't be surprised if they got charged with exploitation of a Minor. They could have gone without showing the penis.
It’s really his foot.
@Blackflame101 It is his peen.
(rolling eyes)... I think it's funny he is only NOW doing this. As in, why now? Probably needs money lol. People's views of nudity in general is so comical and ridiculous! How exactly is he an "underage sex worker"? Did he preform sexual acts?
His peen is exposed while swimming for cash. That's the reasoning.
he is as iconic as the band and no the parents had the choice to let him be in it or not it was their call
Sorry , in a word ludicrous , utterly ludicrous , does not deserve a cracker...
However , if the system is somehow STUPID enough to pay him , bank that cabbage and laugh all the way.
we weren't hearing about this until now. i'm sure he thought he was cool, telling all of his friends that he was on the cover of a nirvana album. but now? now he just wants attention because no one cares anymore about the album cover.
No, and I think he's only suing because he feels ignored. If Dave Grohl had met him for a beer or something there would be no lawsuit.
Seriously, though, the time to negotiate pay is when you sign the contract for the gig. If his parents demanded $30M for this photo, they would’ve simply found another baby who will risk drowning for a $1 bill.
Of course not
Specially because he was proud of that, all these years
Now he realised he can get some good money out of this
And he came up with thos bullshit 🤦♂️
Desperate times calls for desperate measures. I’m sure no one knew who he was until this
This is so stupid! What kind of world is this? People are mad!!! Sick and tired of this bloody cancel culture. What a bunch of ridiculous rubbish.
I don't think it's a ridiculous question but I also don't think it was. If I was the baby I wouldn't be embarrassed either. It would be awesome to say those are my baby balls on the Nirvana cover
Another stupid lawsuit, man the world has gone stupid
This is absolutely fucking stupid and ridiculous 🙄😒
This kid will do anything to stay in the public eye
If the judge doesn't immediately throw this case out, then I don't want to live on this planet any more.
I thought that kid was laughing about it... I guess he changed his mind?
I feel like his parents made the wrong decision for easy money.
Not exploited but they should have explained what happens to a guy’s private’s in water. (Shrinkage)
We live in a time when people feel very entightled to any and everything. I think this is just an opportunity to get famous and get some money without putting in much work.
Doesn’t he have a tattoo of this album cover on himself?
Well, it looks like it worked out for him better than it did for Kurt Cobain.
Stupid on the surface but we know how Holly weird things can be and I could see people stalking him harassing him because of an image of him or about him this is where lawsuits coming to play
He's made bank on being that baby for years. It's completely ridiculous.
He should be more upset about being badly circumcised than seen as a naked baby.
The baby shown is now grown up and he has already made money from this in the past. Now I think that it is a CANCEL CULTURE rearing its ugly head again. But this is my opinion.
pedos almost certainly sexualized this, but pedos will sexualize anything related to kids.
Was that the objective? Go ask the people responsible.
I think he should at least be entitled to a percentage of the royalties. He wasn't in the band but he provided an iconic album cover.
That's not how photography has EVER worked. The photographer, not the subject, is the owner of a photograph. And the model release - which any professional photographer will get signed before they use a picture of a person - will have certainly state that the photographer owns the picture and that there are no ongoing royalties - that's standard boilerplate text on a model release.
Only VERY famous people can negotiate partial ownership of photographs normally, and that has to be done in writing and added to the release. I'm not aware of any case of such being added retroactively.
Its beyond ridiculous. That poor dude is just out of money and is abusing the justice system to fill his wallet
I am going to guess it's bigger now. So what is the big deal?
If he was like 8 years old sure I would understand. He was a baby!
Not sure. I think it's a legitimate question to be asking, though.
But he should be sueing his parents, not Nirvana.
More stupid shit... Women and their fucking cancel culture.
He was exploited by Nirvana and now its time for them to pay the boi
hey can i get your opinion on a topic in your dm?
disgraceful album cover and should never have been made. Maybe if he was wearing shorts it would not have been so bad. Or maybe a painting wearing shorts.
You can also add your opinion below!
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
