Naked baby from Nevermind sleeve sues Nirvana for Child Porn

[maomao]

There is nothing natural about an infant being shoved with no visible accompanying adult, into a swimming pool and used as a prop in a photoshoot.

That's a little unfair. You only need the accompanying adult to be out of shot for a fraction of a second to get the shot. Neither he nor his lawyers have suggested that there were any health and safety issues with the shoot itself.

 

[Petcha]

He’s replicated the cover on several occasions through the years:

View attachment 285296

Blatant. But I'd probably sue too. If Grohl alone is worth $320m. Imagine how much Frances Bean has!

 

[maomao]

Blatant. But I'd probably sue too. If Grohl alone is worth $320m. Imagine how much Frances Bean has!

She's worth about $11 million.

 

[Athos]

There is nothing natural about an infant being shoved with no visible accompanying adult, into a swimming pool and used as a prop in a photoshoot.

The act in itself seems abusive and the fact, as Reno points out that his parents consented and profited, is irrelevant. The child could not have consented to being treated in that way.

Babies have a reflex that prevents them breathing in when under water. Submerging them like that from a very early age is how you teach them to be strong swimmers soonest.

 

[Reno]

There is nothing natural about an infant being shoved with no visible accompanying adult, into a swimming pool and used as a prop in a photoshoot.

The act in itself seems abusive and the fact, as Reno points out that his parents consented and profited, is irrelevant. The child could not have consented to being treated in that way.

I actually said the opposite, it is relevant than his parents consented, as his legal guardians they have the right. If he felt that was abuse, he should sue them, but he still appears to live with his mother, so that could be awkward.

Both of his parents were in the water with him, just out of frame. Baby swimming lessons are quite common, babies reflexively hold their breath when under water You really have to paint this as the baby being "shoved into the water unaccompanied", to frame this as abuse, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

It says more about America's litigation culture than about abuse, to frame this as child abuse is insulting to actual victims of abuse.

The Designer of Nirvana’s Nevermind Cover on Shooting Babies and Working with Kurt Cobain | The Work Behind The Work

The Designer of Nirvana’s Nevermind Cover on Shooting Babies and Working with Kurt Cobain

milanote.com

 

[T & P]

^ Shooting babies seems a bit extreme, though...

 

[IC3D]

If this doesn't work perhaps he can sue his parents for cutting his foreskin off

 

[Aladdin]

I've always felt sorry for babies used in ads. Take the nappy ads.
I mean imagine growing up knowing your bum was in a nappy ad?
Its not as if they need to show a baby's bum. Or rub it on telly.
Ffs. Babies need nappies. Hardly have to advertise for them left alone show rhe babys bum.

Same with the album cover.
Over here the album definitely didnt show the baby's privates.

I think babies cant give consent to be used.. so fuck it ...let him sue. I hope he wins.

Might stop idiots from using naked babies for ads.

 

[Ax^]

^ Shooting babies seems a bit extreme, though...

surprising common at sea

but they are the rules

 

[tim]

This says a lot about America's litigation culture than about abuse, to frame this as child abuse is insulting to actual victims of abuse.

The old "actual victims" line. In the end it's for the courts to decide if he was the victim of a use.

That said I think it's an abuse of those much vaunted parental rights to do this to a baby just to make a few dollars. Most babies, but not all, do react in this way in water. It's a reflex that stops them from drowning which I can't imagine isn't traumatising.

As to living with his mother, as we don't know about the dynamics of his parents' relationship. We don't know if she instigated this or even if she had the power to stop it happening. Abusive controlling male partners are not so uncommon in this world.

 

[liquidindian]

I hear Lou Barlow is to sue Lou Barlow for the naked baby Lou Barlow on the cover of Sebadoh's Bakesale.

(Probably for a far lower amount)

 

[existentialist]

The only thing about this that I have any particular view on this this "child abuse" thing. I think we do go far too far in sexualising nakedness, particularly regarding children, and I think it's counterproductive. If any naked child is somehow a child sex abuse issue "because a paedo might find it stimulating", then surely that must extend to adult nakedness because, say, a potential rapist might find the sight of a naked woman stimulating, and thus all naked women should be hidden from sight?

To undiscriminatingly label any child nudity as somehow potentially offensive seems to me to be playing into very much the wrong ideas.

As for the legal action...I can't help but feel that it's a bit of a fishing expedition...

 

[girasol]

His parents as his legal guardians gave consent and got paid.

They got peanuts compared to how much the album has made. So, in that sense, you can see how he'd want in. Doesn't mean he'll get it. If I was a multimillionaire the baby who was on the cover of my first album would get a handsome cheque, without having to ask. When the parents got paid no one had any idea the incredible amounts of money and its legacy. Just from a moral stand point, I'd feel it would be right to spread the wealth.

 

[mx wcfc]

Of course, if he wins, it could catch on....

 

[A380]

Of course, if he wins, it could catch on....

View attachment 285377

Good job it’s just in civil court. If they prosecuted him for arson in relation to that image he could have ended up in prism.

 

[AmateurAgitator]

Good job it’s just in civil court. If they prosecuted him for arson in relation to that image he could have ended up in prism.

View attachment 285383

Groan

 

[Wilf]

I actually said the opposite, it is relevant than his parents consented, as his legal guardians they have the right. If he felt that was abuse, he should sue them, but he still appears to live with his mother, so that could be awkward. Both of his parents were in the water with him, just out of frame. Baby swimming lessons are quite common, babies reflexively hold their breath when under water You really have to frame this as this baby being "shoved" into the water unaccompanied, to frame this as abuse, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

This says a lot about America's litigation culture than about abuse, to frame this as child abuse is insulting to actual victims of abuse.
View attachment 285336View attachment 285337

The Designer of Nirvana’s Nevermind Cover on Shooting Babies and Working with Kurt Cobain | The Work Behind The Work

The Designer of Nirvana’s Nevermind Cover on Shooting Babies and Working with Kurt Cobain

milanote.com

But when you strip away (no pun...) all the shoots he did since, his parents consent and the rest, you are still left with something that isn't really a great idea - using the image of a naked child for your product. I don't think the 'not great idea' relates to noncery, it's just a common sense question of 'what impact will this have on the kid later in life'. And I don't think that goes away even if he did repeat shoots. Whether that not great idea should be financially compensated through the courts, who knows? But at that level of common sense, I'd be happy to see some of the rich parties in this giving him a few grand.

 

[rekil]

She's worth about $11 million.

This reminded me of the unsavoury row about courtney giving ryan fucking adams of all people access to the daughter's money. She claimed he spunked nearly a million of it. Now I feel queasy.

 

[Idris2002]

I think having 'Nevermind' tattooed across his chest is a sign of how much it fucked him up rather than a sign of how happy he was about it.

He should get a new tat underneath, one reading "nice shooting, son"

 

[rutabowa]

My take is: the details of the guy's specific case are irrelevant imo; the important thing is that a load of strangers on the internet are not in any position to make public judgements on who is or isn't "real victims of abuse", even if the ones accused are their favourite band or whatever. Cos it will further put off real victims from coming forward in the future, when they see that there might be a big public judgement made on them based on a couple of sentences in an article and some google "research".

Talk about it in private if you must, if you are sure the people you are talking to about it won't be negatively affected, but making mob judgements in public is not a good look.

 

[Idris2002]

I’d say worse.

So say we all.

 

[Idris2002]

The old "actual victims" line. In the end it's for the courts to decide if he was the victim of a use.

That said I think it's an abuse of those much vaunted parental rights to do this to a baby just to make a few dollars. Most babies, but not all, do react in this way in water. It's a reflex that stops them from drowning which I can't imagine isn't traumatising.

As to living with his mother, as we don't know about the dynamics of his parents' relationship. We don't know if she instigated this or even if she had the power to stop it happening. Abusive controlling male partners are not so uncommon in this world.

Is there any info on the mother's medical condition? If it's not good, they might be under the hammer of American for-profit health care. Hence the lawsuit.

 

[Ax^]

hmm trying to get cash out if Chad Channing's is a bit much

 

[dessiato]

When you say you nearly went out with her, do you mean you asked her out and she said no ?

If that's the case I've nearly gone out with loads of women

I nearly went out with Lady Gaga but she didn't ask me.

 

[Yossarian]

Whether that not great idea should be financially compensated through the courts, who knows? But at that level of common sense, I'd be happy to see some of the rich parties in this giving him a few grand.

I don't think it'd be a bad result if he ended up with a settlement big enough to make other bands think twice if they're ever considering using a picture of a naked child for a shocking album cover.

 

[maomao]

Up to a point, no-one involved really knew how far it would go. If it had been Mudhoney's fourth album or something I doubt it would be an issue. Though I doubt Mudhoney are worth suing.

 

[8ball]

I don't think it'd be a bad result if he ended up with a settlement big enough to make other bands think twice if they're ever considering using a picture of a naked child for a shocking album cover.

Ridiculous. It wasn't remotely shocking at the time. It's not shocking now. Pics of babies swimming have been around for ages.
The only remarkable thing is the prescience of the dollar on the fish hook.

 

[killer b]

a shocking album cover.

does anyone actually think Nevermind is a shocking album cover?

 

[JimW]

My take is: the details of the guy's specific case are irrelevant imo; the important thing is that a load of strangers on the internet are not in any position to make public judgements on who is or isn't "real victims of abuse", even if the ones accused are their favourite band or whatever. Cos it will further put off real victims from coming forward in the future, when they see that there might be a big public judgement made on them based on a couple of sentences in an article and some google "research".

Talk about it in private if you must, if you are sure the people you are talking to about it won't be negatively affected, but making mob judgements in public is not a good look.

Fair enough about victim of abuse but we are in a position to say if he was exploited for child pornography because the picture isn't.

 

[seeformiles]

They got peanuts compared to how much the album has made. So, in that sense, you can see how he'd want in. Doesn't mean he'll get it. If I was a multimillionaire the baby who was on the cover of my first album would get a handsome cheque, without having to ask. When the parents got paid no one had any idea the incredible amounts of money and its legacy. Just from a moral stand point, I'd feel it would be right to spread the wealth.

But that’s how shooting covers work (& session musicians, producers, etc.). Those people get a set session fee and, if the LP sinks without trace (as it will in the vast majority of cases) they wind up in many cases much better off than the artist. If this chap can prove that people bought the LP because of the cover and not the music then there might be some slight merit in the case but I think this is still bullshit. As to whether those involved in album packaging for a flat fee should be able to claim royalties from the music within is another discussion altogether. Many artists and designers have had their careers boosted (& the fees they charge) by the covers they worked on (e.g. Peter Blake fir Sgt Pepper or Hipgnosis for their work with Floyd and Zeppelin) but it’s not Nirvana’s fault that this fella has failed to capitalise on his accidental success to his satisfaction.