Naked baby from Nevermind sleeve sues Nirvana for Child Porn

[spanglechick]

I wonder if any harm would’ve been done if the parents had never told him that he was the baby on the cover.

I don’t think naked babies are problematic, perverts will perve - but so will the dinner-lady fetishists fapping to hairnet catalogues or dog fanciers over pictures of pups.

This case touches on a number of issues more pertinent than whether a photo of a naked baby is sexual. There are issues around people paid “day rates” for things that later blow up in popularity without any further payment being obliged.

There are huge issues around how social media sharing means that may, if not most western parents are effectively publishing photos of their too-young-to-consent children, where in the past those images would be passed around in family photo albums.

And there are issues around the cultural promotion of embracing your chance of fifteen minutes of fame because it might lead to bigger things. Underscoring what I’ve read about this young man, seems to be a feeling that he thought all the re-shoots etc would lead to something more or better or at least a sustained level of status for him, when really, being the Nevermind baby is hardly anything, and I’m certain he’d be happier now if nobody had ever made a big deal out of it, or like I say - if he had never known.

 

[Cerv]

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...

agreed. if you can seriously claim this image is pornographic then millions of people are going to have rush home and burn their family photo albums that were previously considered entirely innocent.
nudity ≠ sex

 

[Yossarian]

does anyone actually think Nevermind is a shocking album cover?

I think it caused a minor stir in the US at the time, with some big chains refusing to carry it - clearly didn't hurt sales much.

 

[rutabowa]

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.

If the story was about the album cover potentially being banned, then that would be a discussion.... but it isn’t

 

[tim]

does anyone actually think Nevermind is a shocking album cover?

No, merely clichéd and exploitative.

 

[rutabowa]

I wonder if any harm would’ve been done if the parents had never told him that he was the baby on the cover.

I don’t think naked babies are problematic, perverts will perve - but so will the dinner-lady fetishists fapping to hairnet catalogues or dog fanciers over pictures of pups.

This case touches on a number of issues more pertinent than whether a photo of a naked baby is sexual. There are issues around people paid “day rates” for things that later blow up in popularity without any further payment being obliged.

There are huge issues around how social media sharing means that may, if not most western parents are effectively publishing photos of their too-young-to-consent children, where in the past those images would be passed around in family photo albums.

And there are issues around the cultural promotion of embracing your chance of fifteen minutes of fame because it might lead to bigger things. Underscoring what I’ve read about this young man, seems to be a feeling that he thought all the re-shoots etc would lead to something more or better or at least a sustained level of status for him, when really, being the Nevermind baby is hardly anything, and I’m certain he’d be happier now if nobody had ever made a big deal out of it, or like I say - if he had never known.

I do agree with you... but I also don’t think that this case is the right one to hang these discussions from, because 99% of comments I see (not necessarily on here) aren’t your thoughtful take, they are just taking the piss out of the guy/possible victim and posting memes. Which I think is harmful.

 

[strung out]

Maybe Nirvana weren't actually a good band after all and we were all fooled into thinking they were because of record sales fuelled by thirsty pre-internet paedophiles.

 

[Mumbles274]

Banana to sue The Velvet Underground over ‘exploitative’ album cover

A banana has announced plans to sue The Velvet Underground over reports that it had been depicted in an ‘exploitational’ way.

newsthump.com

 

[girasol]

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.

I know how it works. Thanks for mansplaining it. Also, you missed my point completely.

 

[Yossarian]

Maybe Nirvana weren't actually a good band after all and we were all fooled into thinking they were because of record sales fuelled by thirsty pre-internet paedophiles.

I was going to make a joke about ripping off the Pixies but with more naked babies, then I remembered the cover of the 'Gigantic' single was also a naked baby.

 

[xenon]

does anyone actually think Nevermind is a shocking album cover?

no. I’m pretty sure my mum bought me the cassette. I couldn’t really see the cover anyway just looked blue to me. But I don’t remember anyone talking about it.

 

[seeformiles]

I know how it works. Thanks for mansplaining it. Also, you missed my point completely.

I didn’t miss your point (& I have no idea of your gender) - your point appeared to be that the payment of royalties for music should extend to those involved in the creation of the cover art (or is that only if the record is successful?). Please tell me what I missed.

 

[xenon]

And the idea that any depiction of a naked human being is automatically sexual regardless of the age or context of the photo, painting, whatever. Is really dodgy.

 

[fishfinger]

Have any of the cover models tried suing the Human League for "Reproduction"?

 

[keybored]

They could photoshop a leaf over the baby's dick or something.

Something in the Way?

 

[girasol]

I didn’t miss your point (& I have no idea of your gender) - your point appeared to be that the payment of royalties for music should extend to those involved in the creation of the cover art (or is that only if the record is successful?). Please tell me what I missed.

I wasn't laying out any generic rules for the music industry. I just said if I had made millions from an album I'd want everyone involved to do well out if it and I'd personally give out a cheque to this man, just because it's something I'd like to do: share my good fortune. But clearly we live in a world where people can only understand things in terms of precise rules, especially when it comes to cash. Well, if I was stinking rich I'd do things my own way.

 

[keybored]

Pretty sure there have been many dodgy album covers over the years. It is what it is. A moment in time.

View attachment 285219

That's not even their dodgiest cover by a country mile.

 

[rutabowa]

And the idea that any depiction of a naked human being is automatically sexual regardless of the age or context of the photo, painting, whatever. Is really dodgy.

It would be dodgy yes. I don’t believe I’ve read anyone saying anything that even comes close to approaching that idea though.

 

[tim]

And the idea that any depiction of a naked human being is automatically sexual regardless of the age or context of the photo, painting, whatever. Is really dodgy.

This depiction made to market a product by those who would have been well aware that it would cause shock. They used the fact that society sexualises all nudity to appear edgily controversial and to sell a product. This is not art that others are misconceiving. That is in itself dodgy

More dodgy is, as I highlighted above, the fact that, however happy it may seem in that particular shot, it is likely that the baby would have been traumatised by the experience of bringing immersed in water. It is certainly impossible to say that it wasn't. Babies do not reason that well, so it is improbable that even if the parents were fairly close by, he would have found it reassuring.

It was cruel, and the parents, photographers, the agents and the band abused their power and their responsibility when they commissioned the photographs and involved themselves in taking the photos.

 

[Athos]

This depiction made to market a product by those who would have been well aware that it would cause shock. They used the fact that society sexualises all nudity to appear edgily controversial and to sell a product. This is not art that others are misconceiving. That is in itself dodgy

More dodgy is, as I highlighted above, the fact that, however happy it may seem in that particular shot, it is likely that the baby would have been traumatised by the experience of bringing immersed in water.

That's now considered the best way to teach kids to swim. And, having done it my kids (and seen it done to many others), it's say you're well off the mark, here. More often than not they're clearly delighted by it. Maybe something to do with the fact that they still have the reflex not to breathe, and it's not dissimilar to the womb.

 

[tim]

That's now considered the best way to teach kids to swim. And, having done it my kids (and seen it done to many others), it's say you're well off the mark, here. More often than not they're clearly delighted by it. Maybe something to do with the fact that they still have the reflex not to breathe, and it's not dissimilar to the womb.

Yes, similar to being in the womb, just a lot more space and no umbilical cord to supply you with the oxygen that you need to keep you alive.

Here's an alternative view:

It's not true that babies are born with the ability to swim, though they have reflexes that make it look like they are.

A reflex called the bradycardic response makes babies hold their breath and open their eyes when submerged in water, says Jeffrey Wagener, a pediatric pulmonologist in Colorado. (Parents can cause this same reaction by blowing in their baby's face, a response that disappears after about 6 months.



Also, until around 6 months, babies placed in water tummy down reflexively move their arms and legs in a swimming motion, which makes them look like natural swimmers.

"These reflexes don't mean the baby can swim, though," says Wagener.

Babies aren't old enough to hold their breath intentionally or strong enough keep their head above water. In addition to the risk of drowning, it's dangerous for an infant to swallow large amounts of pool water.

Still, many infant swim programs rely on these reflexes to help babies "swim." However, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) doesn’t recommend swimming programs for children younger than 1 year old.

After the age of 1, the AAP suggests checking with your child's doctor to find out if your baby is ready to participate in a swimming program. If she is, ask the doctor for a recommendation for the best type of program for your child's developmental level.

From: https://www.babycenter.com/baby/act...es-are-born-with-the-ability-to-swim_10313062

 

[Athos]

Yes, similar to being in the womb, just a lot more space and no umbilical cord to supply you with the oxygen that you need to keep you alive.

Here's an alternative view:

It's not true that babies are born with the ability to swim, though they have reflexes that make it look like they are.

A reflex called the bradycardic response makes babies hold their breath and open their eyes when submerged in water, says Jeffrey Wagener, a pediatric pulmonologist in Colorado. (Parents can cause this same reaction by blowing in their baby's face, a response that disappears after about 6 months.



Also, until around 6 months, babies placed in water tummy down reflexively move their arms and legs in a swimming motion, which makes them look like natural swimmers.

"These reflexes don't mean the baby can swim, though," says Wagener.

Babies aren't old enough to hold their breath intentionally or strong enough keep their head above water. In addition to the risk of drowning, it's dangerous for an infant to swallow large amounts of pool water.

Still, many infant swim programs rely on these reflexes to help babies "swim." However, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) doesn’t recommend swimming programs for children younger than 1 year old.

After the age of 1, the AAP suggests checking with your child's doctor to find out if your baby is ready to participate in a swimming program. If she is, ask the doctor for a recommendation for the best type of program for your child's developmental level.

From: https://www.babycenter.com/baby/act...es-are-born-with-the-ability-to-swim_10313062

Of course you'll find someone who disagrees with everything.* But it's still a very popular and successful way to teach kids to swim, and one that, in my experience, they enjoy.

*Seriously, who takes their kid to the doctor to ask them to recommend a swimming programme?!

 

[8ball]

Yeah, my understanding was that it was just a reflex that goes after a bit, and isn’t relevant to swimming as such aside from (v speculative) maybe getting them used to water a little.

Then there’s a longish period when you very definitely keep them away from enough water to drown in unless v carefully supported at all times, I thought, though internet seems all over the place on the best time to start them off.

 

[deeyo]

I wonder if any harm would’ve been done if the parents had never told him that he was the baby on the cover.

I don’t think naked babies are problematic, perverts will perve - but so will the dinner-lady fetishists fapping to hairnet catalogues or dog fanciers over pictures of pups.

This case touches on a number of issues more pertinent than whether a photo of a naked baby is sexual. There are issues around people paid “day rates” for things that later blow up in popularity without any further payment being obliged.

There are huge issues around how social media sharing means that may, if not most western parents are effectively publishing photos of their too-young-to-consent children, where in the past those images would be passed around in family photo albums.

And there are issues around the cultural promotion of embracing your chance of fifteen minutes of fame because it might lead to bigger things. Underscoring what I’ve read about this young man, seems to be a feeling that he thought all the re-shoots etc would lead to something more or better or at least a sustained level of status for him, when really, being the Nevermind baby is hardly anything, and I’m certain he’d be happier now if nobody had ever made a big deal out of it, or like I say - if he had never known.

word.

 

[andysays]

It was cruel, and the parents, photographers, the agents and the band abused their power and their responsibility when they commissioned the photographs and involved themselves in taking the photos.

I think you're making a lot of assumptions in this post and others, and I wonder to what extent you're simply speculating and making things up.

On one specific point, are you sure that the photos were actually commissioned by the band for the purpose of being on the album cover, and would it make any difference, in your opinion, if the photo was originally taken by or for the parents for their private purposes, and later used for the cover art when an art director happened to see them and thought it would make a great image for a cover?

 

[tim]

I think you're making a lot of assumptions in this post and others, and I wonder to what extent you're simply speculating and making things up.

On one specific point, are you sure that the photos were actually commissioned by the band for the purpose of being on the album cover, and would it make any difference, in your opinion, if the photo was originally taken by or for the parents for their private purposes, and later used for the cover art when an art director happened to see them and thought it would make a great image for a cover?

I think there are a lot of assumptions being made by many on this thread. Primarily about the motives and character of the person bringing this case. The most absurd assumption, though, is the idea that the image of this technical complexity could have been captured by chance by doting parents in the early 1990s, and then sold on to an impressed art director. If you'd bothered checking, you'd have found out quite easily how it came to be commissioned and the effort that went into capturing the image.

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

Also, beyond my speculations, what exactly do you think, I've made up?

 

[Reno]

I think there are a lot of assumptions being made by many on this thread. Primarily about the motives and character of the person bringing this case. The most absurd assumption, though, is the idea that the image of this technical complexity could have been captured by chance by doting parents in the early 1990s, and then sold on to an impressed art director. If you'd bothered checking, you'd have found out quite easily how it came to be commissioned and the effort that went into capturing the image.

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

Also, beyond my speculations, what exactly do you think, I've made up?

I directed you to that link to disprove your claim that the child was shoved into the pool with no accompanying adult.

 

[Pickman's model]

Yes, similar to being in the womb, just a lot more space and no umbilical cord to supply you with the oxygen that you need to keep you alive.

Here's an alternative view:

It's not true that babies are born with the ability to swim, though they have reflexes that make it look like they are.

A reflex called the bradycardic response makes babies hold their breath and open their eyes when submerged in water, says Jeffrey Wagener, a pediatric pulmonologist in Colorado. (Parents can cause this same reaction by blowing in their baby's face, a response that disappears after about 6 months.



Also, until around 6 months, babies placed in water tummy down reflexively move their arms and legs in a swimming motion, which makes them look like natural swimmers.

"These reflexes don't mean the baby can swim, though," says Wagener.

Babies aren't old enough to hold their breath intentionally or strong enough keep their head above water. In addition to the risk of drowning, it's dangerous for an infant to swallow large amounts of pool water.

Still, many infant swim programs rely on these reflexes to help babies "swim." However, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) doesn’t recommend swimming programs for children younger than 1 year old.

After the age of 1, the AAP suggests checking with your child's doctor to find out if your baby is ready to participate in a swimming program. If she is, ask the doctor for a recommendation for the best type of program for your child's developmental level.

From: https://www.babycenter.com/baby/act...es-are-born-with-the-ability-to-swim_10313062

Change the colour of that font ffs

 

[tim]

Change the colour of that font ffs

Better?

 

[Ax^]

Jesus this is getting heavy about what is more a less a guy stated he tried to make a living out of being the baby from the photo and it has not lead to a life of riches

and now he want money to compensate

but heyho