Nirvana sued by the man who appeared on Nevermind’s album cover as a baby(bbc.com)
bbc.com
Nirvana sued by the man who appeared on Nevermind’s album cover as a baby
https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-58327844
352 comments
If you follow the link through to the New York Post interview that BBC article is based on, and then watch the actual interview, you can see he's pretty fucking conflicted about it even then. The recreations could easily be him trying to take ownership of something he feels conflicted about as a way of exerting control over something he had no ability to consent to.
Quotes from that interview:
Q: "What's it like knowing all these people have seen you naked?"
A: "What's it like knowing all these people have seen my baby penis? When I was a baby? Well, I'm not really a baby anymore, so I have to think it's not me or something. But it's a trip that a lot of people have seen my baby penis, as a baby. I went to a baseball game at the Dodgers, and I had a moment where I was looking out and thinking 'All these people have seen my baby penis, when I was a baby'. It's pretty... pretty crazy. It'd be nice to have a quarter for all the people who have seen my baby penis. But, you know, there's all kinds of puns you could throw on that. But... you know... maybe it doesn't matter though, it's cool to be a part of that recipe for success. Makes you think you could do it again. That might not happy, but it's a pretty big thing, to be a part of, low key, but it definitely trips you out. But then I try not to think about it, because it's not that big of a deal, there's a lot of things going on that are more important."
I mean, it goes on, but to me that reads as someone struggling to come to terms with something that happened to them when they couldn't consent. Most people would not be okay with having their naked image broadcast to the world before they could consent. And then add in the idea that others made a ton of money off content that used their naked image, and they saw almost none of that... it's understandable.
Quotes from that interview:
Q: "What's it like knowing all these people have seen you naked?"
A: "What's it like knowing all these people have seen my baby penis? When I was a baby? Well, I'm not really a baby anymore, so I have to think it's not me or something. But it's a trip that a lot of people have seen my baby penis, as a baby. I went to a baseball game at the Dodgers, and I had a moment where I was looking out and thinking 'All these people have seen my baby penis, when I was a baby'. It's pretty... pretty crazy. It'd be nice to have a quarter for all the people who have seen my baby penis. But, you know, there's all kinds of puns you could throw on that. But... you know... maybe it doesn't matter though, it's cool to be a part of that recipe for success. Makes you think you could do it again. That might not happy, but it's a pretty big thing, to be a part of, low key, but it definitely trips you out. But then I try not to think about it, because it's not that big of a deal, there's a lot of things going on that are more important."
I mean, it goes on, but to me that reads as someone struggling to come to terms with something that happened to them when they couldn't consent. Most people would not be okay with having their naked image broadcast to the world before they could consent. And then add in the idea that others made a ton of money off content that used their naked image, and they saw almost none of that... it's understandable.
So I kind of agree, except:
1) nobody would ever have known it was him if he hadn't been trying to milk it for celebrity
2) He's aiming at the record label because they've got the big bucks, but it's his parents who sold him out when they accepted 200$ for a photoshoot
1) nobody would ever have known it was him if he hadn't been trying to milk it for celebrity
2) He's aiming at the record label because they've got the big bucks, but it's his parents who sold him out when they accepted 200$ for a photoshoot
1) People don't have to know its him for it to kind of fuck him up. Honestly, I dunno know if it would mess me up or not to be in his position, but I could definitely imagine it messing some folks up to know that basically everyone had seen you naked and you had no ability to consent.
Also, the way I read the articles, I don't believe he reached out for those recreations - the media reached out to him.
2) The record label are the ones who ultimately profited off the image.
Edit: Also, it's not like it was hidden that it was him on the album cover. Anyone who wanted to know who the baby was could easily find out it was him. It's in the wikipedia, and I imagine it was probably credited in the Album credits: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevermind#Artwork
That's probably how the media tracked him down for recreations.
Also, the way I read the articles, I don't believe he reached out for those recreations - the media reached out to him.
2) The record label are the ones who ultimately profited off the image.
Edit: Also, it's not like it was hidden that it was him on the album cover. Anyone who wanted to know who the baby was could easily find out it was him. It's in the wikipedia, and I imagine it was probably credited in the Album credits: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevermind#Artwork
That's probably how the media tracked him down for recreations.
"up to know that basically everyone had seen you naked and you had no ability to consent."
He was a baby.
What kind of splitting hair intellectual rhetoric are we people getting into?
All of my uncles, aunts, neighbours, neighbours at the cottage, babysitters, people at the park saw me to some extent 'naked' at the park. Little girls considerably more often since they go topless.
It's the most normal thing on the planet and it's been that way for thousands of years for everyone.
I'm hoping is just an odd HN style discussion and not some kind of weird new social normalization that's happened very quickly, in one generation as an artifact of ultra urbane helicopter parenting.
This is not a debate: his parents will have, or not, consented to him being in a bit of commercial artwork. His being naked as baby is irrelevant. That's it.
He was a baby.
What kind of splitting hair intellectual rhetoric are we people getting into?
All of my uncles, aunts, neighbours, neighbours at the cottage, babysitters, people at the park saw me to some extent 'naked' at the park. Little girls considerably more often since they go topless.
It's the most normal thing on the planet and it's been that way for thousands of years for everyone.
I'm hoping is just an odd HN style discussion and not some kind of weird new social normalization that's happened very quickly, in one generation as an artifact of ultra urbane helicopter parenting.
This is not a debate: his parents will have, or not, consented to him being in a bit of commercial artwork. His being naked as baby is irrelevant. That's it.
The issue is not his nudity so much as the commercial use of his image.
Did you even read the lede?
> Spencer Elden, the man who was photographed as a baby on the album cover for Nirvana's Nevermind, is suing the band alleging sexual exploitation.
The article goes on:
> He also alleges the nude image constitutes child pornography.
> However, Elden's lawyer, Robert Y. Lewis, argues that the inclusion of the dollar bill (which was superimposed after the photograph was taken) makes the minor seem "like a sex worker".
It amazes me just how many HN users just say stuff without reading anything. The person being replied to also doesn't deserve the downvotes; it's an entirely valid point that the general population is likely to agree with. (not saying you downvoted in particular... I just find it baffling.)
> Spencer Elden, the man who was photographed as a baby on the album cover for Nirvana's Nevermind, is suing the band alleging sexual exploitation.
The article goes on:
> He also alleges the nude image constitutes child pornography.
> However, Elden's lawyer, Robert Y. Lewis, argues that the inclusion of the dollar bill (which was superimposed after the photograph was taken) makes the minor seem "like a sex worker".
It amazes me just how many HN users just say stuff without reading anything. The person being replied to also doesn't deserve the downvotes; it's an entirely valid point that the general population is likely to agree with. (not saying you downvoted in particular... I just find it baffling.)
Maybe this is perhaps one of the greatest artistic ironies ever?
The 'barely born baby, into the world chasing the dollar on the devil's rod' ... has come to life in the 'baby adult demanding money for something he's probably not owed, making hyperbolic claims of 'child porn'.
I think if he were not naked, he would have a much harder time with the 'sex crime' hyperbole.
Nudity isn't porn.
The 'barely born baby, into the world chasing the dollar on the devil's rod' ... has come to life in the 'baby adult demanding money for something he's probably not owed, making hyperbolic claims of 'child porn'.
I think if he were not naked, he would have a much harder time with the 'sex crime' hyperbole.
Nudity isn't porn.
Sadly, I think it's a rapid change in at least urbanized predominantly white societies.
This is why recently I've been loving watching old videos of people living their everyday lives before technology oversocialized us.
Here's a recent one that I happened to find because I was researching the Boston accent:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omVFxtbZoyw
These days you'd think all these people were just actors in some 80's movie, but they were real people all walking up to each other and interacting organically. Nobody is staring down at phones, everyone is socially confident, kids are out playing, adults show affection towards the children, and so on. Some may disapprove of the lifestyle of these urban Boston Italians or certain things they say, but it's one reflection of a different time that really wasn't that long ago. This was before mainstream media scared the shit out of people and convinced them that the world is too dangerous, before people overexposed themselves on social media, before video games addicted children, before adults spent more time with their devices than with their families. Things weren't perfect in the old days by any means, but there were some good things about humanity that we've gradually suppressed in ourselves which we've been losing in a short period of time.
Like you, I grew up with a big family where the little ones were sometimes seen naked whether it was when we were running around in the dirt or taking baths together. By a certain age, our parents knew when to start having us to always wear clothes and bathe by ourselves. But there's what I would consider a precious window of innocence in young childhood where kids can exist and be themselves, clothed or not, free of the knowledge of sexuality. My sibling and cousins all were naked at one point or another as young kids and nobody feels scarred or exploited because our elders saw us naked in some vague memory.
This is why recently I've been loving watching old videos of people living their everyday lives before technology oversocialized us.
Here's a recent one that I happened to find because I was researching the Boston accent:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omVFxtbZoyw
These days you'd think all these people were just actors in some 80's movie, but they were real people all walking up to each other and interacting organically. Nobody is staring down at phones, everyone is socially confident, kids are out playing, adults show affection towards the children, and so on. Some may disapprove of the lifestyle of these urban Boston Italians or certain things they say, but it's one reflection of a different time that really wasn't that long ago. This was before mainstream media scared the shit out of people and convinced them that the world is too dangerous, before people overexposed themselves on social media, before video games addicted children, before adults spent more time with their devices than with their families. Things weren't perfect in the old days by any means, but there were some good things about humanity that we've gradually suppressed in ourselves which we've been losing in a short period of time.
Like you, I grew up with a big family where the little ones were sometimes seen naked whether it was when we were running around in the dirt or taking baths together. By a certain age, our parents knew when to start having us to always wear clothes and bathe by ourselves. But there's what I would consider a precious window of innocence in young childhood where kids can exist and be themselves, clothed or not, free of the knowledge of sexuality. My sibling and cousins all were naked at one point or another as young kids and nobody feels scarred or exploited because our elders saw us naked in some vague memory.
We haven't had photography for thousands of years, and it's reasonable to think that we are still adjusting to the implications.
It's quite normal for people to be embarrassed when their parents show baby pictures, especially if it involves nudity. It's transplanting the childish innocence onto the person's social present.
His parent's consent does not negate the harm done, possibly the opposite.
It's quite normal for people to be embarrassed when their parents show baby pictures, especially if it involves nudity. It's transplanting the childish innocence onto the person's social present.
His parent's consent does not negate the harm done, possibly the opposite.
> 2) The record label are the ones who ultimately profited off the image.
Did they? Seriously - would this album have sold a single fewer copies if the cover had been a picture of a duck, or a floating Pom-Pom, or any of a million other things?
To claim they profited from the photo, you’d have to prove that people bought one of the most popular albums of all time because this dudes baby parts were on the cover.
Did they? Seriously - would this album have sold a single fewer copies if the cover had been a picture of a duck, or a floating Pom-Pom, or any of a million other things?
To claim they profited from the photo, you’d have to prove that people bought one of the most popular albums of all time because this dudes baby parts were on the cover.
>2) The record label are the ones who ultimately profited off the image.
Were the parents (or whomever consented) not compensated?
Were the parents (or whomever consented) not compensated?
A pittance yes. But the record label were the ones who accepted their consent for a baby who ultimately couldn't consent - and the record label were the ones who then distributed the image and made a ton of money off of it.
Just because the parents made a morally questionable choice to consent on behalf of their child doesn't absolve the record label of also making the morally questionable choice of distributing and profiting from the naked image of a child who couldn't consent for themselves.
Just because the parents made a morally questionable choice to consent on behalf of their child doesn't absolve the record label of also making the morally questionable choice of distributing and profiting from the naked image of a child who couldn't consent for themselves.
> profiting from the naked image of a child who couldn't consent for themselves.
As an honest question, I'm curious whether the "naked" part makes this worse in your opinion. I, personally, don't feel any shame about my body at that age -- too young for me to even remember -- being seen. (As opposed to a nude photo of me now being distributed without my approval.)
To me it seems like the nakedness is irrelevant -- if it was a violation of consent to use his baby image, then clothes don't negate the violation.
As an honest question, I'm curious whether the "naked" part makes this worse in your opinion. I, personally, don't feel any shame about my body at that age -- too young for me to even remember -- being seen. (As opposed to a nude photo of me now being distributed without my approval.)
To me it seems like the nakedness is irrelevant -- if it was a violation of consent to use his baby image, then clothes don't negate the violation.
For myself, no. I've played naked ultimate frisbee points before and there are undoubtedly pictures of me naked doing ridiculous shit as part of college frisbee team hazing floating around the internet (or one of my former teammates hardrives) somewhere - and I honestly don't care.
Although, that said, those pictures have never surfaced. My feelings about them might change if a coworker pulled them up unexpectedly one day and started giving me shit for it.
Whatever our individual feelings about nudity - or how it should be perceived in society (and I agree, it should not be shameful or automatically sexualized the way it is) our society does view nudity a certain way. And people are allowed to feel about they feel about that. If it makes it worse for him, and it sure seems to, then that's something we have to respect. Even if we wish it were otherwise.
My main thing is voluntary consent. He couldn't. He should have been able to. I don't think parents should have the right to effectively sell their kids before they can consent. If that means we don't can't use kids younger than a certain age in modeling and marketing, so be it.
Although, that said, those pictures have never surfaced. My feelings about them might change if a coworker pulled them up unexpectedly one day and started giving me shit for it.
Whatever our individual feelings about nudity - or how it should be perceived in society (and I agree, it should not be shameful or automatically sexualized the way it is) our society does view nudity a certain way. And people are allowed to feel about they feel about that. If it makes it worse for him, and it sure seems to, then that's something we have to respect. Even if we wish it were otherwise.
My main thing is voluntary consent. He couldn't. He should have been able to. I don't think parents should have the right to effectively sell their kids before they can consent. If that means we don't can't use kids younger than a certain age in modeling and marketing, so be it.
There are billions of photos of infants and young children used in instruction manuals, text books, advertising, and as stock photos. What's more, these are very often necessarily taken in various states of undress, for example the diapered infants on the box of the kiddie pool in my backyard.
Another example: the instructions for my pediatric otoscope used photos of an infant, showing proper placement. This is a commercial use.
Do you propose that all of these photos should be made illegal?
EDIT: And what about movies? Should we ban infants and small children from film as well?
Another example: the instructions for my pediatric otoscope used photos of an infant, showing proper placement. This is a commercial use.
Do you propose that all of these photos should be made illegal?
EDIT: And what about movies? Should we ban infants and small children from film as well?
but no child can consent to anything, so unless we just put a blanket ban on media depictions of under-18s, we have to rely on the consent of the parents
i really don't see what the moral question is. they wanted a photo of a newborn swimming, they bought the photo of a newborn swimming
i really don't see what the moral question is. they wanted a photo of a newborn swimming, they bought the photo of a newborn swimming
I think it'd be reasonable to reduce the age of consent to kids who actually can consent. 18 is pretty arbitrary. I think it's pretty clear a 14 year old can consent to many things. A 10 or 8 year old can probably also offer partial consent.
But a newborn can't. A 2 year old can't. A four year old can't. The line of when a kid can understand what they're consenting to gets blurry from there. And we probably just need much more nuanced consent laws rather than a blanket "You can legally consent at 18, and your parents can consent for you before that."
There are certain things we need to let parents consent to - like medical care. But we don't need to let parents consent to the use of their kids image in media. We don't need to allow parents to sell their kids.
And I don't think "Well, they can't consent and if we give them consent we can't do this class of thing" is a good enough reason to deny them the ability to consent.
So we can't use naked pictures of kids who can't consent in media, or pictures at all. So what? Voluntary consent is important. If respecting voluntary consent means there are things we can't do - then there are things we can't do.
But a newborn can't. A 2 year old can't. A four year old can't. The line of when a kid can understand what they're consenting to gets blurry from there. And we probably just need much more nuanced consent laws rather than a blanket "You can legally consent at 18, and your parents can consent for you before that."
There are certain things we need to let parents consent to - like medical care. But we don't need to let parents consent to the use of their kids image in media. We don't need to allow parents to sell their kids.
And I don't think "Well, they can't consent and if we give them consent we can't do this class of thing" is a good enough reason to deny them the ability to consent.
So we can't use naked pictures of kids who can't consent in media, or pictures at all. So what? Voluntary consent is important. If respecting voluntary consent means there are things we can't do - then there are things we can't do.
>or pictures at all
To be clear, consent relates to things like, well, album covers and other types of commercial photography such as marketing and advertising. There's no consent needed for editorial (e.g. news) photography.
This also wouldn't even be a discussion if this were some obscure art photography. It just happens to be on an iconic album cover.
To be clear, consent relates to things like, well, album covers and other types of commercial photography such as marketing and advertising. There's no consent needed for editorial (e.g. news) photography.
This also wouldn't even be a discussion if this were some obscure art photography. It just happens to be on an iconic album cover.
Movies and TV shows would be pretty weird if you couldn't ever show children. So would school yearbooks, typically printed by a for-profit company.
> or pictures at all. So what? Voluntary consent is important
How far are you willing to push that?
Should I need to destroy photos that accidentally capture an infant in public?
Should children not get vaccine shots until they can meaningfully consent?
How far are you willing to push that?
Should I need to destroy photos that accidentally capture an infant in public?
Should children not get vaccine shots until they can meaningfully consent?
My comment answered the vaccine shots (medical procedure). The one below mine answered the "destroy photos" - commercial use is different from incidental, personal, or news reporting in current consent laws. And that seems like the right line to draw.
So you're proposing an entirely new legal regime around the interminably gray area of commercial activity, and it's intersection with the equally gray area of consent by children, which is currently centered on age, typically late teens for most uses?
Relief in the courts would require a completely new body of common law. In the mean time, legislation would be the only way to provide compensation to victims of un-consented childhood photography.
What specific ideas do you have for laws that could start to provide this relief?
Relief in the courts would require a completely new body of common law. In the mean time, legislation would be the only way to provide compensation to victims of un-consented childhood photography.
What specific ideas do you have for laws that could start to provide this relief?
The history of psychological effects on child actors and children of "blogger moms" indicates there should be atleast some ethical concerns.
Just because parents consent doesn't mean that parents are looking out for their children or understand what the effects of fame as a young child will be.
I don't have cut and dried answers here, but I don't think you can pretend that there aren't ethical concerns with media protrayal of young children that need atleast some consideration.
Edit: Personally, I think that if a photograph of a naked baby was important to this piece of art, the ethical solution would have been to keep the baby's identity anonymous (at least until he was 18). That would have done a lot to balance the ethics here, especially as the identity of the baby shouldn't matter.
Just because parents consent doesn't mean that parents are looking out for their children or understand what the effects of fame as a young child will be.
I don't have cut and dried answers here, but I don't think you can pretend that there aren't ethical concerns with media protrayal of young children that need atleast some consideration.
Edit: Personally, I think that if a photograph of a naked baby was important to this piece of art, the ethical solution would have been to keep the baby's identity anonymous (at least until he was 18). That would have done a lot to balance the ethics here, especially as the identity of the baby shouldn't matter.
> The record label are the ones who ultimately profited off the image
The record label profited off the music, not the image. The image on its own means nothing without the music.
The record label profited off the music, not the image. The image on its own means nothing without the music.
> 1) nobody would ever have known it was him if he hadn't been trying to milk it for celebrity
It was a thing that happened to him as a baby, and it sounds like he's had conflicted feelings about it. It doesn't seem reasonable to blame him for not acting in just the perfect way for his whole life to minimize the effects on him.
> 2) He's aiming at the record label because they've got the big bucks, but it's his parents who sold him out when they accepted 200$ for a photoshoot
It's not an either or thing. It's totally legitimate to blame all the parties involved.
However, of all the parties involved, his parents were likely the most ignorant of what this photo would become. From the OP:
> In 2008, Spencer's father Rick recounted the photo shoot to US radio network NPR, saying he had been offered $200 to take part by Weddle [the photographer], who was a family friend.
> "We just had a big party at the pool, and no one had any idea what was going on!"
> The family quickly forgot the photoshoot until, three months later, they saw the Nevermind album cover blown up on the wall of Tower Records in Los Angeles.
I kind of hesitate to use terms like this, but the intent of your comment seems to be to deflect blame towards the least responsible parties, which seems like a kind of victim blaming.
It was a thing that happened to him as a baby, and it sounds like he's had conflicted feelings about it. It doesn't seem reasonable to blame him for not acting in just the perfect way for his whole life to minimize the effects on him.
> 2) He's aiming at the record label because they've got the big bucks, but it's his parents who sold him out when they accepted 200$ for a photoshoot
It's not an either or thing. It's totally legitimate to blame all the parties involved.
However, of all the parties involved, his parents were likely the most ignorant of what this photo would become. From the OP:
> In 2008, Spencer's father Rick recounted the photo shoot to US radio network NPR, saying he had been offered $200 to take part by Weddle [the photographer], who was a family friend.
> "We just had a big party at the pool, and no one had any idea what was going on!"
> The family quickly forgot the photoshoot until, three months later, they saw the Nevermind album cover blown up on the wall of Tower Records in Los Angeles.
I kind of hesitate to use terms like this, but the intent of your comment seems to be to deflect blame towards the least responsible parties, which seems like a kind of victim blaming.
Nobody would know it’s him even now. I just saw a photograph of him and read his name but I am confident I would never recognize him or the name after a day or two.
Living nearby and having gone to some bars he frequents, he is a frequent user of "Don't you know who I am!"
Let me use a straw man to make a point: what if instead of that photo shoot and it becoming the cover of an album he was actually sexually exploited as a baby and a photo of that horrific act became widely seen. Do you think it would still fuck him up to know that it happened to him as a child even if you or I couldn’t recognize him? That is to say, I don’t think his issue is so much that people recognize him as the baby on the album cover but the fact that he recognizes himself as that baby.
Yes, if the situation was completely different, then I would absolutely have completely different thoughts about the situation. I don't even have a problem with a civil lawsuit making a case that there is emotional distress. But the particular argument being made here is that the album cover constitutes child pornography and that the dollar bill portrays the infant as a sex worker. I'm not a lawyer, but that doesn't seem remotely plausible to me.
Right. I am with you on your point there. My point is not necessarily that his lawsuit does or does not have merit. It is simply that just because nobody knows who he is until he tells them doesn’t mean that damage to him wasn’t done. Ultimately I think his parents fucked up by doing this and not thinking through how it would affect their son.
Yeah, just imagine. You are born into this mysterious existence full of beauty, suffering, sadness and joy. You live on a mote in an infinite universe, sharing it with billions upon billions of self aware entities just like yourself, and ever since the very first moment you had awareness, each and every one of them had seen your little tiny baby penis.
Poor bastard.
Poor bastard.
> I mean, it goes on, but to me that reads as someone struggling to come to terms with something that happened to them when they couldn't consent. Most people would not be okay with having their naked image broadcast to the world before they could consent. And then add in the idea that others made a ton of money off content that used their naked image, and they saw almost none of that... it's understandable.
As soon as the child pornography argument falls flat on its face (assuming the prosecution is actually that boneheaded), the defense may argue that the magnitude of possible harm is very different considering how the body, mind, and memory of an infant hardly recognizable to their adult counterpart and that there is no sort of humiliating aspect to the album art that would cause the public to view the adult Elden in any negative way.
It's not as if Elden doesn't have some point to make. It's bad that he hasn't been compensated for being pictures on one of the most iconic albums ever made. But unless there's something revealed in trial that I don't know, it doesn't appear that the record company or the band did anything wrong. It all hinges on whether there was sexual child exploitation, and although some people on HN seem to believe that the image of the naked body of an infant is inherently sexual in nature (which is creepy to me, but what do I know), I highly doubt that a judge, jury, or regular people are going to buy that argument.
As soon as the child pornography argument falls flat on its face (assuming the prosecution is actually that boneheaded), the defense may argue that the magnitude of possible harm is very different considering how the body, mind, and memory of an infant hardly recognizable to their adult counterpart and that there is no sort of humiliating aspect to the album art that would cause the public to view the adult Elden in any negative way.
It's not as if Elden doesn't have some point to make. It's bad that he hasn't been compensated for being pictures on one of the most iconic albums ever made. But unless there's something revealed in trial that I don't know, it doesn't appear that the record company or the band did anything wrong. It all hinges on whether there was sexual child exploitation, and although some people on HN seem to believe that the image of the naked body of an infant is inherently sexual in nature (which is creepy to me, but what do I know), I highly doubt that a judge, jury, or regular people are going to buy that argument.
The image has nothing to do with the success of the album, it's the music. They could have put a deflated football on the cover and it would have still been iconic.
Given the easy availability of newborn babies, I think $200 is fair.
Given the easy availability of newborn babies, I think $200 is fair.
What is it with Americans and the naked body? Babies are supposed to be naked, it's not embarrassing.
We put giant photos of ourselves as babies, often naked, on sticks and wave around when we graduate. I have never heard anyone even hint at that being an issue.
And for the record, breastfeeding is the most natural thing in the world.
We put giant photos of ourselves as babies, often naked, on sticks and wave around when we graduate. I have never heard anyone even hint at that being an issue.
And for the record, breastfeeding is the most natural thing in the world.
> The recreations could easily be him trying to take ownership of something he feels conflicted about as a way of exerting control over something he had no ability to consent to.
beautiful
beautiful
"It'd be nice to have a quarter for all the people who have seen my baby penis."
Sounds like the only issue he has with it is that HE didn't get any of the money.
Sounds like the only issue he has with it is that HE didn't get any of the money.
And:
> It's not the first time Spencer has been asked to recreate the image - he has posed three times before for the album's 10th, 17th and 20th anniversaries.
> "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 not the first time Spencer has been asked to recreate the image - he has posed three times before for the album's 10th, 17th and 20th anniversaries.
> "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.
"This seems to be a cash grab."
That's exactly what the picture is of - the allure of capitalism hooking you right from the start.
That's exactly what the picture is of - the allure of capitalism hooking you right from the start.
You really think thats a factor huh.
If his parents didn’t sign a release then there is a claim. It doesn't matter if the subject felt good about it for some time. Actually, in your mind, how is that related? Its hard for me to relate so can you elaborate?
The additional claim of it being child pornography is not strong and is to get them to settle faster. Although he says there was an agreement about covering the genitals that seems broken, if there is no document that will be the only tricky part about the case (just in general contractual stipulations), but does also bolster the settlement claim.
If his parents didn’t sign a release then there is a claim. It doesn't matter if the subject felt good about it for some time. Actually, in your mind, how is that related? Its hard for me to relate so can you elaborate?
The additional claim of it being child pornography is not strong and is to get them to settle faster. Although he says there was an agreement about covering the genitals that seems broken, if there is no document that will be the only tricky part about the case (just in general contractual stipulations), but does also bolster the settlement claim.
Did he not have the balls(!) to do it naked as in the original?
that's addressed in the article.
Sorry not sorry, that’s a really dumb question to ask.
The motivations don’t matter. It was wrong for Nirvana to do and a big award will make others less likely to do this in the future.
You can't say the motivation doesn't matter when the person is clearly ill-intended. He claims he "has suffered and will continue to suffer lifelong damages". Nobody knew who this person was before he started complaining about it, how could he "suffer damage" from it? There's no case here and any defense lawyer would have a field day with this.
I absolutely think it's possible to suffer as the result of a photo, even if it's not clear you're the subject.
It doesnt matter. You can be exuberantly happy about a photo and still have power over it if that power was not signed away.
The power in this case is damages which can be collected due to the ongoing commercial use.
The power in this case is damages which can be collected due to the ongoing commercial use.
> Nobody knew who this person was before he started complaining about it, how could he "suffer damage" from it?
Ehh, that seems like pretty shaky logic. I think it's pretty safe to say that lots of people would be bothered by naked pictures of themselves being posted publicly for all to see, even if they can't be identified by the pictures.
That's not to say he's going to win, but I think you're simplifying things a bit too much.
Ehh, that seems like pretty shaky logic. I think it's pretty safe to say that lots of people would be bothered by naked pictures of themselves being posted publicly for all to see, even if they can't be identified by the pictures.
That's not to say he's going to win, but I think you're simplifying things a bit too much.
Sure, but you ignored the part where he's ill-intended. This is obviously not bothering him given that he willingly recreated the picture in the past to milk money out of it.
How is the part I quoted related to whether he's ill-intended or not? Weren't you saying that before anybody knew it was him it was impossible for him to "suffer damage" from it? That's the part I disagree with.
My reason for not caring about his motivations is that a big reason for torts to exist is to discourage bad behavior from others. If you look at the actions of a major American corporation a huge fraction of them are “so we don’t get sued.” The next time a record label thinks about using an exploitative image of a baby for their advertising, I want them to think “oof, remember when we did that and had to pay out $100 million?” Not “oh yeah, remember that was one of the iconic album covers of all time.”
Elden himself hardly matters to this... a judge ordering the label to set $100 million on fire (or make a non-deductible charitable donation) would have the same effect.
Elden himself hardly matters to this... a judge ordering the label to set $100 million on fire (or make a non-deductible charitable donation) would have the same effect.
The record label secured the rights to use the photo from people legally able to grant those rights.
I don’t see a legal quandary at all and, unless you think all minors’ likenesses should not be able to appear in commercial material, I don’t see a moral or ethical quandary. Plaintiff’s destination for their complaint is with their parents, IMO.
Same as if adult Mikey objected to being associated with Life cereal or adult Macauley Culkin objected to being in Home Alone.
Edit to add: > Elden says his parents never signed a release authorising the use of his image on the album.
Iff that claim is true (which should be a relatively straightforward finding of fact) and that fact means that the label didn’t have the rights to use the likeness [the claim doesn’t rely on a technicality of the word “release”, but where the label has a license to use], then I’d say he’s got a case.
I don’t see a legal quandary at all and, unless you think all minors’ likenesses should not be able to appear in commercial material, I don’t see a moral or ethical quandary. Plaintiff’s destination for their complaint is with their parents, IMO.
Same as if adult Mikey objected to being associated with Life cereal or adult Macauley Culkin objected to being in Home Alone.
Edit to add: > Elden says his parents never signed a release authorising the use of his image on the album.
Iff that claim is true (which should be a relatively straightforward finding of fact) and that fact means that the label didn’t have the rights to use the likeness [the claim doesn’t rely on a technicality of the word “release”, but where the label has a license to use], then I’d say he’s got a case.
> I don’t see a legal quandary at all and, unless you think all minors’ likenesses should not be able to appear in commercial material, I don’t see a moral or ethical quandary. Plaintiff’s destination for their complaint is with their parents, IMO.
Its not a moral quandary it is a contractual quandary which the lawsuit accurately details.
If his parents didn't sign the likeness then anyone using the image has a liability issue. It doesnt matter if its the photographer, Nirvana, the record label, etc
Yes, your edit covers it and I would also say he has a case. Spoonjim has been correct the whole time. Somehow that opinion isnt seen as popular right now but the accuracy is not in question.
Its not a moral quandary it is a contractual quandary which the lawsuit accurately details.
If his parents didn't sign the likeness then anyone using the image has a liability issue. It doesnt matter if its the photographer, Nirvana, the record label, etc
Yes, your edit covers it and I would also say he has a case. Spoonjim has been correct the whole time. Somehow that opinion isnt seen as popular right now but the accuracy is not in question.
I see this photo as somewhere in the uncomfortable gray area between Macauley Culkin and child pornography. That's why I don't believe the same rules should apply.
What? In what way is this possibly pornographic? It is really uncomfortable to me that you're just going to casually throw that out there as an axis for this to be measured on.
It is a naked picture of a baby clearly used to provoke and advertise. I'm OK with naked baby photos being taken and kept by parents but I don't think it's OK to use a child's naked photo as one of the iconic commercial photos of a generation. I do not think it is child pornography but I think that it is a misuse of a baby's naked photo in a way that a parent should not be able to consent to on behalf of the child.
I feel like part of the problem is that your position is changing based on outcome, right, like it became a problem after the fact when it became a commercial hit.
I don’t think naked baby photos should be commercially licensable at all.
Not even for biology/medical textbooks or forensics training content or other educational purposes from commercial publishers?
I don’t see naked as equaling sexualized and I don’t see the Nirvana cover as the latter either, but I definitely can’t see a total ban on pictures in commercially-sold material being workable.
I don’t see naked as equaling sexualized and I don’t see the Nirvana cover as the latter either, but I definitely can’t see a total ban on pictures in commercially-sold material being workable.
What is your personal threshold for "naked"? Completely naked? Diapers? Nipples showing?
If your position is something along the lines of, babies cant consent, young children cant consent, why dont we just live in a world where we dont include them in media so we dont have people growing up having to figure out how they feel about how they were presented to the world... sure, that would be a pretty consistent world view.
If its just that you think a naked baby is pornographic then I guess its an entirely different conversation. Its not really clear what motivates your statement here though.
If its just that you think a naked baby is pornographic then I guess its an entirely different conversation. Its not really clear what motivates your statement here though.
You had good arguments, this is the weakest one of them. The child pornography aspect of this civil suit is just to settle it faster, in order to add gravity to the situation, but it would be counterproductive in actuality.
Although likeness is regulated only at the state level, and is the only aspect of this lawsuit, copyright is regulated at the federal level and is the basis for the commercial licenses to exist at all - if this actually was child pornography which requires a category of something considered obscenity, it would be ineligible for copyright which would mean the existing licensors would have no reason to pay for the license at all, and there would be no value to give for the likeness settlement.
The rest is your feelings and that is not relevant here.
Although likeness is regulated only at the state level, and is the only aspect of this lawsuit, copyright is regulated at the federal level and is the basis for the commercial licenses to exist at all - if this actually was child pornography which requires a category of something considered obscenity, it would be ineligible for copyright which would mean the existing licensors would have no reason to pay for the license at all, and there would be no value to give for the likeness settlement.
The rest is your feelings and that is not relevant here.
An amazing case of the Streisand Effect.
> Elden alleges his "true identity and legal name are forever tied to the commercial sexual exploitation he experienced as a minor which has been distributed and sold worldwide from the time he was a baby to the present day".
Absolutely had no idea what the legal name of the naked baby on the cover of Nevermind was. But now I do!
> Elden alleges his "true identity and legal name are forever tied to the commercial sexual exploitation he experienced as a minor which has been distributed and sold worldwide from the time he was a baby to the present day".
Absolutely had no idea what the legal name of the naked baby on the cover of Nevermind was. But now I do!
I knew his name a few years ago when he "recreated" the pic for an anniversary. And promptly forgot his name until today.
This just seems like a cash grab (by him, or more likely some lawyer, idk.)
This just seems like a cash grab (by him, or more likely some lawyer, idk.)
If it really was so traumatic he wouldn’t be recreating the cover.
That doesn't necessarily follow. It's really difficult to predict what people will do in the wake of trauma. The adult photoshoot could be an attempt to take ownership of it in some way. Whether you see their behavior as rational or not, you can't assess their mental state on that information alone.
It took him 30 years to become what's depicted on the cover, an attempted cash grab.
Quite ironic. He claims to be an artist, maybe this is a performance piece?
I hope so. I have always interpreted the album cover to be a statement that greed is innate to us, to the point that you could go fishing for babies using dollar bills as bait. It’s conceivable that he’s just underscoring that point now. I kinda doubt he’d do so at the expense of his own reputation, but it’s a nice thought.
> Non-sexualised photos of infants are generally not considered child pornography under US law. However, Elden's lawyer, Robert Y. Lewis, argues that the inclusion of the dollar bill (which was superimposed after the photograph was taken) makes the minor seem "like a sex worker".
This (the dollar as a sex worker) seems to a difficult position to hold. We’ll see what will happen in court.
Edit: I’ve always thought the dollar was here to say “everyone want to be rich, also newborns”, or something similar, never thought the newborn as a sex worker.
This (the dollar as a sex worker) seems to a difficult position to hold. We’ll see what will happen in court.
Edit: I’ve always thought the dollar was here to say “everyone want to be rich, also newborns”, or something similar, never thought the newborn as a sex worker.
> never thought the newborn as a sex worker.
probably because that's a completely ridiculous connection that nobody makes
probably because that's a completely ridiculous connection that nobody makes
Telling on themselves
Even if it _did_ suggest that, the conclusion that that would make it pornographic is very silly.
Such a thing would still most probably be intended as a critical observation about the sorts of people that innocent babies become, rather than a literal depiction of a baby prostitute.
It's wow ridiculous.
Such a thing would still most probably be intended as a critical observation about the sorts of people that innocent babies become, rather than a literal depiction of a baby prostitute.
It's wow ridiculous.
I thought the implication was quite clear: a (somewhat jejune) critique of consumerist society by implying we're made to chase the "almighty dollar" from a very young age.
I took it slightly more subtly as society using consumerism, which we are inherently attracted to, as bait to hook us into things which are not in our best interest.
The lawyer, this Robert Y. Lewis, seems to be a real sick person. I'm not keeping my kids in his vicinity. What if something makes him think they are underage sex workers and approach them with a dollar to buy the services from them?
LOL! I wonder if, having a dirty mind like that to make that association, should auto-add you to some child predator list. None of this is sane, but in this crazy witch hunt, the witch--hunters themselves are not excluded.
So after 30 years, he's still after that dollar?
So apparently he still can't keep his head above water on his own.
Well my sympathy goes more to guys like Aqualung and its painter anyway:
https://theoutline.com/post/4490/jethro-tull-aqualung-cover-...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17052400
If I were Spencer Elden, I wouldn't hold my breath on that one.
Nevermind.
So apparently he still can't keep his head above water on his own.
Well my sympathy goes more to guys like Aqualung and its painter anyway:
https://theoutline.com/post/4490/jethro-tull-aqualung-cover-...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17052400
If I were Spencer Elden, I wouldn't hold my breath on that one.
Nevermind.
This, to me, looks like a case where both parties are "wrong". I think its wrong to put photos of people who cannot (or have not) agreed in the public, especially photos of children, even more so when its not just some publication, but your damn Album cover. Also looking at you, scorpions.
But I also think the "the dollar makes it look like a sex worker" spin is ridicoulus. Sounds to me like a claim that just exists to spin up the media and make sure the original claim ("you did not have the right wo put that image on that cover without covering") gets through.
So yeah, I guess that guy should get some of the Nirvana money. But cut the sex worker crap.
So yeah, I guess that guy should get some of the Nirvana money. But cut the sex worker crap.
So literally there should never be anyone under 18 featured in any sort of media?
Luckily, I am no law maker but a random guy with opinions on the internet.
But no, I would not say that we should ban every depiction of non-adults from all media. That would be way to broad. And I am not saying the "what" and "how" is something I can answer nor
did I think about it in detail.
I think the rule "should" be something between what we have now and what what you suggested (and what my original post might suggest). Where exactly, I cannot answer.
But thanks for pointing out that my original formulation was lacking.
There are rules around sexual content in particular in the US (which may differ by state) and certainly around under-age sexual content. Which this was not considered to be. (That said, I doubt any record label would sign off on that cover today.)
At first I thought you were being ridiculously extreme in your interpretation, but now I realize you were referring to the legal age of consent, as the parent was.
It’s a good point, and I think the age of consent is varied by state and country for just this reason.
It’s a good point, and I think the age of consent is varied by state and country for just this reason.
Some countries have one age at which all the rights and responsibilities suddenly apply. It doesn't have to be like that. In some countries, drinking age and voting age and driving age and smoking age and signing a contract age are all different.
Well, not naked at least.
I haven't heard many positive stories from former child actors who talk about their experiences. The stories usually involve parents abusing their authority over the kid to make them chase fame for the parent's benefit. There should at least be more protections to ensure kids used in media aren't left with nothing other than jokes about that thing they did as a kid from strangers.
Selection bias ? How many child actors play in a few TV episodes, probably have a bit of fun and earn a bit of money, then disappear from the spotlight. You never hear from those because there is nothing to say.
That's selection bias. You never hear from them because they weren't famous enough to hear from. I know someone who modeled/acted a couple of times as a kid, not remotely famous, and yeah, it wasn't good for them. But you'll never hear their story, because they weren't famous.
A short list of child actors who are doing just fine:
- Jessica Alba - Leo DiCaprio - Ben Afleck - Ryan Reynolds - Selena Gomez - Ryan Gosling - Justin Timberlake - Julia Stiles - Elijah Wood - Lacey Chabert - Emma Watson - Joseph Gordon-Levitt - Neil Patrick Harris - Natalie Portman - Hayden Christensen - Ethan Hawke - Anna Paquin - Fergie - Kenan Thomson - Nick Canon - Scarlett Johansson - Jodie Foster - Christian Bale
- Jessica Alba - Leo DiCaprio - Ben Afleck - Ryan Reynolds - Selena Gomez - Ryan Gosling - Justin Timberlake - Julia Stiles - Elijah Wood - Lacey Chabert - Emma Watson - Joseph Gordon-Levitt - Neil Patrick Harris - Natalie Portman - Hayden Christensen - Ethan Hawke - Anna Paquin - Fergie - Kenan Thomson - Nick Canon - Scarlett Johansson - Jodie Foster - Christian Bale
This supports my point. I haven't googled all of them, but a random sample all wanted to go into acting, or at least don't recount the experience in a way that suggests the kind of pressure I'm talking about.
IMDB lists 31.4 million actors and 20.3 million actresses. I don't think your short list of actors says much about the whole range of experiences.
IMDB lists 31.4 million actors and 20.3 million actresses. I don't think your short list of actors says much about the whole range of experiences.
> I don't think your short list of actors says much about the whole range of experiences.
And you think your even more anecdotal and even more vague "I haven't heard many positive stories from former child actors who talk about their experiences" does?
And you think your even more anecdotal and even more vague "I haven't heard many positive stories from former child actors who talk about their experiences" does?
To add support, this is basically Jennette McCurdy's story, although she doesn't blame her parents for it. https://www.bustle.com/entertainment/why-isnt-sam-in-the-ica...
Tell that to Mila Kunis (Baywatch at age 11) the Olsen twins (Full House as literal babies) Kaley Cuoco (first film appearance at 11yo) and thousands of other sucessful people who got thier big breaks as children. Children are part of the entertainment industry and always have been. An industry without them would look very strange.
Harry Potter, but Harry is 18yo on his first day at Hogwarts. Every family sitcom disappears. And what about work entirely created by kids? I guess highschool drama clubs are out too. This gets very strange very quickly.
Harry Potter, but Harry is 18yo on his first day at Hogwarts. Every family sitcom disappears. And what about work entirely created by kids? I guess highschool drama clubs are out too. This gets very strange very quickly.
To be fair, The Magicians is magic college instead of magic grade school, but it's more common in literary magic systems for the child to discover magic after puberty, in which case magic high school might make more sense.
And are you really going to claim that the Olsens are normal?
When did Mickey Rooney start talking about how kids are treated in Hollywood? I'm surprised that at this point we have the ASPCA but no equivalent organization chaperoning kids on movie sets. Not only should this exist, but I think it should have an oversight board of former child actors. Foster, Barrymore and Feldman for instance would have a lot of hard questions to ask.
And are you really going to claim that the Olsens are normal?
When did Mickey Rooney start talking about how kids are treated in Hollywood? I'm surprised that at this point we have the ASPCA but no equivalent organization chaperoning kids on movie sets. Not only should this exist, but I think it should have an oversight board of former child actors. Foster, Barrymore and Feldman for instance would have a lot of hard questions to ask.
Given that one if them is now an Avenger, I wouldn't tell her that her career path was any sort of mistake. She can decide that for herself.
She is not an Olsen twin.
Barrymore has no qualms talking about how rough things got for her. One of her things is offering sometimes unsolicited advice to young actors about avoiding her worst mistakes. Foster simply doesn't talk much to anybody, and only part of that was because she was in the closet for decades (came out in '13, but apparently was an open secret as far back as '93 when an LGBT friend outed her to me). She fucked off to France to get some peace and quiet. Both of these have had careers at least as good as Olsen's.
Feldman, as far as I'm aware, still hasn't named the person who was ultimately responsible for Haim's suicide, even after #MeToo and Weinstein's defrocking.
All three have strong opinions about what constitutes sketchy. I'm not clear if the Olsen Twins have registered the ways that they could have had a better life and that makes me sad.
I don't recall if it was Barrymore or someone else who said that the problem with being a famous child is that you are too young to really understand friendship yet, and once people want things from you it's very hard to learn about it, because so many people are investing energy in pretending to be your friend. Imagine going through life not knowing what real friends look like.
Barrymore has no qualms talking about how rough things got for her. One of her things is offering sometimes unsolicited advice to young actors about avoiding her worst mistakes. Foster simply doesn't talk much to anybody, and only part of that was because she was in the closet for decades (came out in '13, but apparently was an open secret as far back as '93 when an LGBT friend outed her to me). She fucked off to France to get some peace and quiet. Both of these have had careers at least as good as Olsen's.
Feldman, as far as I'm aware, still hasn't named the person who was ultimately responsible for Haim's suicide, even after #MeToo and Weinstein's defrocking.
All three have strong opinions about what constitutes sketchy. I'm not clear if the Olsen Twins have registered the ways that they could have had a better life and that makes me sad.
I don't recall if it was Barrymore or someone else who said that the problem with being a famous child is that you are too young to really understand friendship yet, and once people want things from you it's very hard to learn about it, because so many people are investing energy in pretending to be your friend. Imagine going through life not knowing what real friends look like.
Then go tell the next britney spears or taylor swift that she isn't allowed to perform until she is 18. Waitress? Sure. Dig ditches on a farm? Ok. Sing a song and get paid for it? Nope. That is adult stuff. Can she dance at the olympics or is that also performing?
Neither of the Olsen twins is Wanda - Elizabeth Olsen is their younger sister.
Thanks. That is the limit of my olsen sister knowledge.
[deleted]
were any of the people you mentioned or other child actors forced to perform in the nude?
We had no idea who this non descript nude baby was until he recreated his own photo. America is sexualizing children and creating a moral panic on it. Not all nudity is sexual. Please grow up America.
The olsen twins? Id have to check. Maybe. I saw a nude kid on a documentary last night about surfers called The 100 Foot Wave. Look for the infamous clip of Cuoco from Growing Up Brady, or the coconut bikini clip of Kunis from That70sShow. I think those were very exploitative, certainly far more so than the Nevermind cover.
> I think its wrong to put photos of people who cannot (or have not) agreed in the public, especially photos of children (...)
The article mentions that the plaintiff's parents were paid $200 by a photographer who was a friend of the family to have a photoshoot,and go as far as claiming that they were unaware of the whole pro photoshoot they held at the pool and were paid $200 to join was a photoshoot.
They also state that the record company even gave the plaintiff's family a commemorative record and a teddy bear a couple of months after the album release.
From this newspiece alone, and ignoring the fact that the plaintiff is known for having been milking his role in Nirvana's album cover since ever, it's hard to believe that a) the plaintiff and his whole family were not fully aware they willingly participated in a commercial photoshoot for which they were paid for, b) the plaintiff had an epiphany and change of heart regarding the event and suddenly felt he was a victim.
The article mentions that the plaintiff's parents were paid $200 by a photographer who was a friend of the family to have a photoshoot,and go as far as claiming that they were unaware of the whole pro photoshoot they held at the pool and were paid $200 to join was a photoshoot.
They also state that the record company even gave the plaintiff's family a commemorative record and a teddy bear a couple of months after the album release.
From this newspiece alone, and ignoring the fact that the plaintiff is known for having been milking his role in Nirvana's album cover since ever, it's hard to believe that a) the plaintiff and his whole family were not fully aware they willingly participated in a commercial photoshoot for which they were paid for, b) the plaintiff had an epiphany and change of heart regarding the event and suddenly felt he was a victim.
These are allegations. The judge will decide what grounds these allegations have appropriately. It's not likely the sex worker has any grounds and will be tossed out. I presume it's just to beef up the lawsuit.
"Throw everything at the wall and see what sticks", if you will.
"Throw everything at the wall and see what sticks", if you will.
This article from 2015 isn't going to do him much good
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2015/jan/16/thats-m...
"It is a weird thing to get my head around, being part of such a culturally iconic image. But it’s always been a positive thing and opened doors for me. I’m 23 now and an artist, and this story gave me an opportunity to work with Shepard Fairey for five years, which was an awesome experience."
"It helps with girls, too"
"I might have one of the most famous penises in the music industry, but no one would ever know that to look at me. Sooner or later, I want to create a print of a real-deal re-enactment shot, completely naked. Why not? I think it would be fun."
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2015/jan/16/thats-m...
"It is a weird thing to get my head around, being part of such a culturally iconic image. But it’s always been a positive thing and opened doors for me. I’m 23 now and an artist, and this story gave me an opportunity to work with Shepard Fairey for five years, which was an awesome experience."
"It helps with girls, too"
"I might have one of the most famous penises in the music industry, but no one would ever know that to look at me. Sooner or later, I want to create a print of a real-deal re-enactment shot, completely naked. Why not? I think it would be fun."
Sometimes people land on hard times so they make ill advised decisions. Lets be honest here, nobody is going to look at the adult and say hey I remember you- you're the naked baby on the nirvana album. He is the one who did that, by recreating the photo multiple times and doing interviews.
If we want to talk about gross album covers, I seem to remember a Scorpions album from the 70s that I don't ever care to see again or even look up...
If we want to talk about gross album covers, I seem to remember a Scorpions album from the 70s that I don't ever care to see again or even look up...
There's a version of the Martin Denny Romantica album cover where he's snuggling a woman with her bare breast exposed. Not gross but, very odd. The 60's were a strange time, man.
I wonder if the baby on the right is still into peeing on himself or would like to sue Logitech now.
https://www.adforum.com/creative-work/ad/player/23267/baby/l...
https://www.adforum.com/creative-work/ad/player/23267/baby/l...
What the hell is the ad even supposed to mean
a little from column A, a little from column B
In 1991, the year "Nevermind" was released, the band Nirvana was not yet nationally known, and nowhere close in popularity to the internationally known super-legendary band they are viewed as now. Who knows if Nirvana would have even reached such levels of fame if Kurt Cobain were still alive today?
Nirvana, before the release of "Nevermind", their first major label release ever, was just a local garage band from Aberdeen, WA (not even from Seattle). Nobody cared about them except some high school kids from Washington state who had seen them live. There was no internet, smart phones, or social media shaping our values and popular culture. People still listened to the radio and bought cassette tapes and CDs at local record stores. The majority of the social standards we are discussing here and now likely didn't even exist as widely shared common values in 1991, over 30 years ago.
Dude wasn't the "Nirvana baby" - he was just the neighbor/ baby of friend of the family who happened to be there at the time. If they didn't use him, any other baby would have been fine. The idea of the photo/ album cover design would have been made into reality either way with or without him as the specific baby.
Nirvana, before the release of "Nevermind", their first major label release ever, was just a local garage band from Aberdeen, WA (not even from Seattle). Nobody cared about them except some high school kids from Washington state who had seen them live. There was no internet, smart phones, or social media shaping our values and popular culture. People still listened to the radio and bought cassette tapes and CDs at local record stores. The majority of the social standards we are discussing here and now likely didn't even exist as widely shared common values in 1991, over 30 years ago.
Dude wasn't the "Nirvana baby" - he was just the neighbor/ baby of friend of the family who happened to be there at the time. If they didn't use him, any other baby would have been fine. The idea of the photo/ album cover design would have been made into reality either way with or without him as the specific baby.
Much of their success was due to heavy rotation on MTV. The album cover had little to do with it in my opinion, was funny but didn't particularly affect the grunge movement as far as I can see.
If this guy had a brain, he would be trying to get the rights to his image and instead create an NFT of the cover and sell it for millions. Instead I hope he gets nothing
Another unpopular opinion here but cash grab or not the facts are clear - he was a baby, he didn’t consent to the photo, and a lot of people made a lot of money from it.
The only internally consistent solution I can see is that children below age of consent should not be allowed to contribute to commercial art in any form. That’d mean no more child actors, and that would sound heretical to many, but I see no other solutio.
The only internally consistent solution I can see is that children below age of consent should not be allowed to contribute to commercial art in any form. That’d mean no more child actors, and that would sound heretical to many, but I see no other solutio.
By this logic children can't have any surgical procedures, because u need to consent for that. That's why children have legal representatives.
I’m assuming a legal representative is still not enough to get a child a tattoo? Isn’t that the more appropriate comparison? a child needs medical procedures. It doesn’t have to model.
Right now I'm looking at the instructions for a pediatric otoscope, showing how to use it on an infant, who probably didn't consent to this use of his photo.
There are literally billions of photos of infants and young children used in instruction manuals, text books, advertising, and as stock photos.
Should all of these be made illegal? Should manufacturers and advertisers be sued for using these photos without the subjects' consent?
There are literally billions of photos of infants and young children used in instruction manuals, text books, advertising, and as stock photos.
Should all of these be made illegal? Should manufacturers and advertisers be sued for using these photos without the subjects' consent?
I mean why not? Seems like a fairly small price to pay, ask them to draw it out.
Small price? Are we talking about the same thing? There are many millions of infants and small children that have appeared in photos and film. How much compensation do you think each should be awarded? How much might that add up to?
Going forward, do you propose we ban all infants and small children in movies and photographs? Do I need to apologize for letting my kids watch Look Who's Talking because its main characters were infants?
Going forward, do you propose we ban all infants and small children in movies and photographs? Do I need to apologize for letting my kids watch Look Who's Talking because its main characters were infants?
[deleted]
I hope they guy gets nothing and has to pay everyone's court costs.
I have never seen such a clear cash in attempt. I hope the judge laugh's this guy out of the court room if it goes that far.
I have never seen such a clear cash in attempt. I hope the judge laugh's this guy out of the court room if it goes that far.
Could have sworn I'd seen interviews/articles before about how this person doesn't care and uses it to brag to his friends.
That's certainly possible - the article quotes him from a few years ago talking about how it's been a positive experience that opened doors for him.
We all process things differently, but making a joke of something that hurts is a VERY common way of dealing.
Idk if his claims of trauma are real or not, but I'll tell you what - that image was worth more than the ~$200 his parents got for it and on those grounds alone I'd award him a few hundred thousand.
Idk if his claims of trauma are real or not, but I'll tell you what - that image was worth more than the ~$200 his parents got for it and on those grounds alone I'd award him a few hundred thousand.
Why do you think it would be worth more than $200? People bought the album for the music, not the cover. And even if the art might be worth more, wouldn’t it be the photographer who made the image that deserved it? Any other baby could substitute, and it would be essentially the same image. What unique quality did this particular baby contribute?
I don't know how old you are, but having been a child/teen in that era - that album cover was ICONIC. Nirvana had other albums that were very successful, but those albums' cover art was never as ubiquitous as Nevermind. Heck, a small cut of poster sales alone would probably net this guy a few hundred k.
I'm previous generation from you (OK boomer!) but I bought the cd as soon as I saw the video for "smells like teen spirit". That album, Alice in chains, Soundgarden, Stone Temple Pilots, all just as good as Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd and The Beatles, the music I grew up with. They all had some iconic album covers, but I'm really not sure the cover has much to do with how many albums sell. Look at the Beatles white album, or Metallica's black album.
Agreed, it was chuckle worthy and made a point. But had zero to do with why I wanted it.
You'd wish the courts to bail out anybody that ever made a deal that turned out not so great?
I mean yeah pretty much. We live in a world where you could sell a painting at a garage sale for $1 and someone could turn around and sell it for $10,000 the next day. That’s not any more “right” than a world where you morally and legally had to share any profits with where you bought it. I’d like to live in the more fair less cutthroat world thanks
[deleted]
Someone is hard up for cash, not sure if it's the attorney or the plaintiff.
IANAL of course, but if they had no authorization to use the photo, that sounds like a plausible claim. The CP charges do not sound plausible.
But that is how our legal system works - you don't ask for what you really believe is fair, you throw everything at the wall to see what sticks. I suspect that the CP claim is just for negotiation, to get a settlement on the more reasonable claim.
But that is how our legal system works - you don't ask for what you really believe is fair, you throw everything at the wall to see what sticks. I suspect that the CP claim is just for negotiation, to get a settlement on the more reasonable claim.
Let's ask the model for the album cover of Killer Virgin from The Scorpions.
Must be an american thing, nudity =sex
Must be an american thing, nudity =sex
It's becomming also an european thing. Stupidity is contagious. I wonder how people will react to frescos of naked children depicted on european buildings.
There is a difference between a fresco and a photograph.
I know this one! The difference is that for the fresco the naked child had to pose for hours or days, instead of seconds?
The most obvious difference seems to be "a painting can be done without a specific live model."
>"I know this one! The difference is that for the fresco the naked child had to pose for hours or days, instead of seconds?"
No need to be a smartass. What thought do you think I'm trying to convey here?
No need to be a smartass. What thought do you think I'm trying to convey here?
I don't know, please elaborate. The difference could also be that for a fresco the statue of limitations has expired? Or that the descendants of the "victims" have probably mixed with the descendants of the painters so that it is impossible to find out who should pay who.
Perhaps you mean that the difference is that a fresco is art, but a photograph can't be art? In that case I imagine many photographers would disagree. I also imagine that you would disapprove of naked children on a fresco if that fresco were created today.
My most charitable interpretation would be that the difference has something to do with cultural relativism. That the frescos that have existed for hundreds of years are acceptable because they were made in a time when not all nudity was considered sexual, kind of like we don't hate the ancient Greeks for pederasty even though it would be frowned upon in modern times. But now we know it's wrong and child abuse. If that is true then why don't we point to these frescos as a dark point in human history, like with slavery?
Perhaps you mean that the difference is that a fresco is art, but a photograph can't be art? In that case I imagine many photographers would disagree. I also imagine that you would disapprove of naked children on a fresco if that fresco were created today.
My most charitable interpretation would be that the difference has something to do with cultural relativism. That the frescos that have existed for hundreds of years are acceptable because they were made in a time when not all nudity was considered sexual, kind of like we don't hate the ancient Greeks for pederasty even though it would be frowned upon in modern times. But now we know it's wrong and child abuse. If that is true then why don't we point to these frescos as a dark point in human history, like with slavery?
Essentially, a photograph is a near perfect capture of an individual. A fresco is a stylized representation of an individual. I an not saying photography isn't art. But rather, culturally, people are more willing to accept an abstract representation of a nude child rather than a photograph of one. I assume, because, people don't see the fresco as 'real' as a photograph.
I'm sure cultural relativism plays a part, too. If something looks like a renaissance painting people are primed to accept it as art.
I'm sure cultural relativism plays a part, too. If something looks like a renaissance painting people are primed to accept it as art.
It's a cash grab thing. No one involved earnestly interprets the cover as sexual.
Actually, they (The Scorpions) got a LOT of flak over that album cover and issued a groveling apology over it years later. It's not used as the album art for that album any more either.
It's hard to adjudicate if that image should be part of Wikipedia, but I would probably not include it (I would delete it from the articles), since it is on the border line.
The Scorpions are a German rock band- look it up.
It would be quite amusing if the final verdict was, amongst other things, "Never mind"
> The legal case also alleges that Nirvana had promised to cover Elden's genitals with a sticker, but the agreement was not upheld.
But erlier:
> Elden says his parents never signed a release authorising the use of his image on the album.
Umm... get your story straight?
But erlier:
> Elden says his parents never signed a release authorising the use of his image on the album.
Umm... get your story straight?
Not really.
If the agreement was verbal, there would not be a signed release.
If the agreement was verbal, there would not be a signed release.
That's my point. There either was a legal contract or not. Verbal contract is still legal contract, but paper is preferred because it is easier to prove it after the fact.
If there wasn't some kind of contract the second part (promising to use tape on genitals) would seem to contradict it.
If there wasn't some kind of contract the second part (promising to use tape on genitals) would seem to contradict it.
The fact that he re-created the image on his own several times as a teenager and as an adult, along with his expression of seeing it all as a benefit: "It's always been a positive thing and opened doors for me... when he heard I was the Nirvana baby, he thought that was really cool." should get the suit properly tossed out. I say "should"...
In my opinion, this is one of the downfalls of our (US) legal system. That it expects too much of individuals at a young age.
It's very possible this is a cash grab. But it's also very possible the plantiff has come to believe what happened in the past was wrong, and truly wants recompense.
It's very possible this is a cash grab. But it's also very possible the plantiff has come to believe what happened in the past was wrong, and truly wants recompense.
I've been thinking about this image recently thanks to the cover image of The "Weird Al"-phabet podcast[0] which was a parody of the cover of Weird Al Yankovic's 1992 album Off the Deep End[1], which in turn was a parody of the Nevermind cover art. Weird Al's work has often stood on the shoulders of giants, but I appreciate the way he adds something significant to it (almost) every time.
[0] https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-weird-al-phabet/id...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Off_the_Deep_End#/media/File:W...
[0] https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-weird-al-phabet/id...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Off_the_Deep_End#/media/File:W...
I’m late to this post, but I’ve read through it and can’t see this addressed, so here is a genuine question.
What is the law in the US regarding photos captured either in public or on private property?
So I invite my friends around, one couple have a young son, another has a camera. The latter takes a picture of the former swimming in my pool.
Later, the latter sells the photo he took to a record company who put it on then cover of what would be one of the most critically acclaimed albums of the decade.
Is the law in the US that the photographer needs to get a release for any person in the photo? I don’t think that’s the case here in the UK, but I am willing to be corrected.
Here, I think if I take a photo anywhere where I am permitted, I own the copyright to the picture and can do anything I like with it. (I understand there are some exceptions, usually involving trademark rather than copyright?)
What is the law in the US regarding photos captured either in public or on private property?
So I invite my friends around, one couple have a young son, another has a camera. The latter takes a picture of the former swimming in my pool.
Later, the latter sells the photo he took to a record company who put it on then cover of what would be one of the most critically acclaimed albums of the decade.
Is the law in the US that the photographer needs to get a release for any person in the photo? I don’t think that’s the case here in the UK, but I am willing to be corrected.
Here, I think if I take a photo anywhere where I am permitted, I own the copyright to the picture and can do anything I like with it. (I understand there are some exceptions, usually involving trademark rather than copyright?)
One interesting outcome of this lawsuit, whether it's successful or not, is that any future sort of artwork like this will be produced with GAN-based technology such as https://thispersondoesnotexist.com/. Why risk questions of human consent when humans can be taken out of the loop?
Someone might even monetize it by running a GAN service that, for a fee, hashes all an image's GAN inputs plus a snapshot of the code and publishes the hash in an Ethereum block to prove that (1) the image really was produced synthetically, and (2) it was produced no later than a certain timestamp. TODO: include keyword "NFT" for maximum hype.
Someone might even monetize it by running a GAN service that, for a fee, hashes all an image's GAN inputs plus a snapshot of the code and publishes the hash in an Ethereum block to prove that (1) the image really was produced synthetically, and (2) it was produced no later than a certain timestamp. TODO: include keyword "NFT" for maximum hype.
If this case wins on the argument that it's sexual, doesn't that mean that everyone who owns a copy of the album possesses child porn? At the very least it certainly must mean that his parents and the photographer need to be jailed for producing child porn.
"Smells like greed spirit."
https://twitter.com/fookingods/status/1430468274412670976
I wish I could somehow steer attention from this guy and this topic to how great album it was.
Lawyers exploiting perverted and archaic puritanical values many Americans still hold in order to squeeze out a quick buck. Truly and uniquely American.
He should just do an NFT of the cover. probavby make way more $ than any settlement
[deleted]
Thirty years latter, and the same baby is still swimming after that dollar.
In a sick dystopian world, which our world is not even approaching, the organization designated as the sole arbiter of what is to be considered child pornography, added the album cover to the registry of CSAM on the grounds that the plaintiff's arguments had something to them that resonated deeply with the people running the organization.
Overnight, all Nirvana fans in the country became equated to sick pedophiles in possession of child pornography. Many got jailed, most just got onto the sex offenders list for life with no recourse available.
Overnight, all Nirvana fans in the country became equated to sick pedophiles in possession of child pornography. Many got jailed, most just got onto the sex offenders list for life with no recourse available.
Waiting for the Apple CSAM detection for the album art in 3...2...1...
One of America's problems: people seeing companies/organizations/individuals with fat stacks and trying to (ab)use the courts to get an easy piece of the pie for themselves. Liability lawsuits ("my kid slipped and fell on your playground, give me a million dollars"), patent trolling, and cash grabs like this just make me shake my head.
Can't help but think of the lyrics to Frances Farmer Will Have Her Revenge on Seattle:
It's so relieving to know that you're leaving
As soon as you get paid
It's so relaxing to hear that you're asking
Whenever you get your way
It's so soothing to know that you'll sue me
Starting to sound the same> He also alleges the nude image constitutes child pornography... However, Elden's lawyer, Robert Y. Lewis, argues that the inclusion of the dollar bill (which was superimposed after the photograph was taken) makes the minor seem "like a sex worker".
I wish the courts were ok with a response of "Are you fucking kidding me, or are you just batshit insane?" Even remotely arguing that this is somehow like child pornography is a grave disservice to all the actual victims of child porn. I sometimes wonder what it's like to go through life with absolutely no shame.
I wish the courts were ok with a response of "Are you fucking kidding me, or are you just batshit insane?" Even remotely arguing that this is somehow like child pornography is a grave disservice to all the actual victims of child porn. I sometimes wonder what it's like to go through life with absolutely no shame.
> I wish the courts were ok with a response of
That exists in the concept of "frivolous litigation" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frivolous_litigation This has been used in response to some "sovereign citizen" cases (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_citizen_movement#Leg...), and it can result in penalties like fines.
There's also "vexatious litigation", for when you're effectively trying to use the court system to harass someone.
That exists in the concept of "frivolous litigation" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frivolous_litigation This has been used in response to some "sovereign citizen" cases (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_citizen_movement#Leg...), and it can result in penalties like fines.
There's also "vexatious litigation", for when you're effectively trying to use the court system to harass someone.
I think there are also opportunities to have a case dismissed before going into the costly parts of a trial like discovery. The judge can dismiss it just based on the merits of the suit, where they just assume all the alleged facts will turn out to be true.
(I am so not a lawyer, would love if a lawyer could correct me)
(I am so not a lawyer, would love if a lawyer could correct me)
My understanding is that the bar for this is incredibly high, especially vexatious litigation.
> I wish the courts were ok with a response of "Are you fucking kidding me, or are you just batshit insane?"
It didn’t involve the courts (at that stage), but Arkell versus Pressdram comes close to this. If you haven’t come across it before it’s a short and sweet read.
https://lettersofnote.com/2013/08/07/arkell-v-pressdram/
It didn’t involve the courts (at that stage), but Arkell versus Pressdram comes close to this. If you haven’t come across it before it’s a short and sweet read.
https://lettersofnote.com/2013/08/07/arkell-v-pressdram/
If he wanted to sue, he really should have just gone for the consent angle and not the child porn one. Who exactly would agree that it's pornographic or exploitative? I doubt the vast majority of reasonable people would see the body of an infant in its natural form as anything but innocent on its own, but what do I know. They should have to demonstrate that the dollar bill makes people see the art as depicting child sex work; if this is requested somehow by the defendants, the glove won't fit. This may be a missing detail, but he should have just asked the record company for some money before escalating it. If he did that and they refused, I'm sure that would have been a part of the news story.
The logical end to the argument is that children should never appear in any kind of commercial media because they can't consent, which... come on man. Worst of all, though I'm no lawyer, it seems like there's definitely a non-zero chance he'll get counter-sued by each defendant when his own lawsuit falls apart.
The logical end to the argument is that children should never appear in any kind of commercial media because they can't consent, which... come on man. Worst of all, though I'm no lawyer, it seems like there's definitely a non-zero chance he'll get counter-sued by each defendant when his own lawsuit falls apart.
> The logical end to the argument is that children should never appear in any kind of commercial media because they can't consent
That's not so unreasonable, considering how child stardom seems to mess with kids. Maybe better motion capture+deep fake tech will let professional actors appear as kids in media. Abolishing child labor may have seemed as ridiculous a few hundred years ago as this does today.
That's not so unreasonable, considering how child stardom seems to mess with kids. Maybe better motion capture+deep fake tech will let professional actors appear as kids in media. Abolishing child labor may have seemed as ridiculous a few hundred years ago as this does today.
No thank you. Children should not be prohibited from acting any more than they should be prohibited from working at Chik-fil-a. How is an adult actor supposed to play a toddler? What are you talking about?
Child labour is illegal
Is this universally true? In the US it appears that it just means there's more restrictions to what types of jobs you can/can't do and the hours you're allowed to work, but AFAIK it's not actually illegal to work as a child.
https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/YouthRules/young-workers/no...
https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/YouthRules/young-workers/no...
Define child. Define labour.
In my justification 14 years can legally hold some jobs.
Are girl scouts going door to door and selling cookies performing labour?
Children unloading and loading the dishwasher at home?
In my justification 14 years can legally hold some jobs.
Are girl scouts going door to door and selling cookies performing labour?
Children unloading and loading the dishwasher at home?
[deleted]
Equating any appearance of children for artistic or commercial purposes to child stardom isn't particularly reasonable. Having known my share of child actors (one in a minor hit series and was in several movies, another in a full season of a show that never took off, and one who was in lots of music videos), I don't believe there is anything inherently bad for a child being depicted in media except stardom, which is arguably negative consequences for many adults.
Elden isn't a star of anything. His infant likeness appears on an album in the 90's and 99.99999% of people don't know who the hell he is. His argument is that the mere appearance of his naked infant body with a superimposed dollar bill is child exploitation of sexual nature. In spite of his current stance, he's taken photos in his adulthood that resemble the album art in question (albeit with swim trunks on), the argument seems disingenuous and out of left field, and he could never claim to have been damaged by some sort of stardom because nobody identified him until he literally outed himself as the baby on that cover.
Elden isn't a star of anything. His infant likeness appears on an album in the 90's and 99.99999% of people don't know who the hell he is. His argument is that the mere appearance of his naked infant body with a superimposed dollar bill is child exploitation of sexual nature. In spite of his current stance, he's taken photos in his adulthood that resemble the album art in question (albeit with swim trunks on), the argument seems disingenuous and out of left field, and he could never claim to have been damaged by some sort of stardom because nobody identified him until he literally outed himself as the baby on that cover.
[deleted]
It's normal for a lawsuit to throw every possible thing that could stick in and hope that one of them survives - consent is also part of this lawsuit
At the same time he never consented to a nude image of himself being plastered on one of the most popular albums ever made. Even if it is a cash grab I think he's got a point.
Given that it was legal content and his parents consented, why is it any different from "stage mothers" and others consenting to (and indeed pushing) their children into any number of ads, photo shoots, TV, film, etc.?
Otherwise any adult who felt embarrassment over their appearance in media as a minor could sue and parental consent to do those activities has no meaning.
ADDED: And if your response is that "But he was nude" then your beef is with the law that didn't make this illegal. There are of course borderline cases. See Brooke Shields in "Pretty Baby" for example which caused quite a bit of controversy at the time. (And, indeed, as I wrote elsewhere, I'm pretty sure no major record label would go near this cover with a 100 foot pole today not because it would likely be illegal but because it would be a lightning rod.)
Otherwise any adult who felt embarrassment over their appearance in media as a minor could sue and parental consent to do those activities has no meaning.
ADDED: And if your response is that "But he was nude" then your beef is with the law that didn't make this illegal. There are of course borderline cases. See Brooke Shields in "Pretty Baby" for example which caused quite a bit of controversy at the time. (And, indeed, as I wrote elsewhere, I'm pretty sure no major record label would go near this cover with a 100 foot pole today not because it would likely be illegal but because it would be a lightning rod.)
>Elden says his parents never signed a release authorising the use of his image on the album.
He can say whatever he wants, but that would seem extremely unlikely.
Major record companies have legal departments. They're not going to greenlight an album cover without rights to the images. Anyone who works in publishing knows how strictly this stuff is treated at a major label.
Major record companies have legal departments. They're not going to greenlight an album cover without rights to the images. Anyone who works in publishing knows how strictly this stuff is treated at a major label.
Probably worth it to bet they lost the paperwork and get a settlement.
There is zero chance that his parents did not consent. It's not like someone just stole their baby for a few hours.
But his parents were apparently paid.
That doesn't mean there was consent and model release paperwork.
The record company should (only slightly ironically) keep records.
If they exist this case is going nowhere. If they don't - that might get interesting.
The record company should (only slightly ironically) keep records.
If they exist this case is going nowhere. If they don't - that might get interesting.
One would think there'd be some kind of implied consent.
It's hard to imagine a situation where a record company ends up with naked pictures of someones kid, the parent gets paid, and the parent is genuinely not ok with the pics appearing on an album cover.
I agree it's more interesting if there's no consent form, but I still would hope the court would side with the record company.
It's hard to imagine a situation where a record company ends up with naked pictures of someones kid, the parent gets paid, and the parent is genuinely not ok with the pics appearing on an album cover.
I agree it's more interesting if there's no consent form, but I still would hope the court would side with the record company.
I wonder if that payment serves as some sort of understanding/contract.
The money was given for some reason. What reason did the parents think?
The money was given for some reason. What reason did the parents think?
Accepting payment is usually understood to indicate acceptance of the terms of a contract. A contract generally requires: offer, acceptance, a clear intention to interact (create a legal relationship), and consideration (money or goods/services). One very interesting example of the significance of accepting payment is the lease for the Guantanamo Bay naval facility.[1]
[1] https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN17200921
[1] https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN17200921
Without an explicit contract I think it would be hard to argue they consented to commercial use of the photo, even if they accepted a payment at the time.
What else would they have thought they were getting paid for? A picture was taken, and they got paid; the only logical reason for them to be paid would be that there was some commercial value to the photo.
Does it really matter? The evidentiary standard is "preponderance of the evidence" so it's pretty much up to the defendant to prove that they had consent as long as the plaintiff can prove it was him on the cover. That's why some states even require the release to be in writing rather than a verbal agreement.
Well, I can almost guarantee that the first question that the defendant's counsel will ask in discovery is whether payment was accepted in connection with the photoshoot. The second question will be what the parent thought the payment was for.
A written agreement definitely helps to clarify the matter, but is neither necessary nor sufficient to guarantee a resolution.
A written agreement definitely helps to clarify the matter, but is neither necessary nor sufficient to guarantee a resolution.
Not a lawyer but I sat jury duty on a contract dispute.
A verbal agreement absolutely can be an enforceable contract. The crux is whether there was a meeting of the minds. Of course, without documentation this is hard to prove, so you find people arguing it either direction in legal disputes.
A verbal agreement absolutely can be an enforceable contract. The crux is whether there was a meeting of the minds. Of course, without documentation this is hard to prove, so you find people arguing it either direction in legal disputes.
> Given that it was legal content and his parents consented, why is it any different from "stage mothers" and others consenting to (and indeed pushing) their children into any number of ads, photo shoots, TV, film, etc.?
The nudity and the scale.
The nudity and the scale.
The parent comment has addressed the nudity, but the scale really doesn't make it different legally.
> the scale.
I don't think anyone expected this album to be a commercial success, much less one of the most iconic rock albums in history.
I don't think anyone expected this album to be a commercial success, much less one of the most iconic rock albums in history.
His parents consented for him. If he wants to sue anyone, he can try going after them. I think he'll get about the same outcome as this lawsuit, though.
He needs to sue his parents for getting such a shit deal for use of the photo, in the first place. I'll bet if, instead, they'd negotiated a penny for every copy of the album sold, he would be overjoyed that 'everyone in the world' had seen his chipolata.
I think that the idea that parents can post nude pictures of you without your consent is bullshit, which was a subtext of my op.
That is a whole other ball of wax. Age of consent is a thing. As a parent I wouldn’t choose to let my child be part of that sort of photo. I also don’t think his parents had any malice in putting Spencer in that photo. Until recently he seemed completely ok with drawing attention to the photo by recreating it multiple times and giving interviews.
Let’s not pretend that he would be suing Nirvana if that album sold 5000 copies either.
Let’s not pretend that he would be suing Nirvana if that album sold 5000 copies either.
That's what makes this so highly probable that it is just a vulgar money grab. The image was recreated when he was 10, and again in 2016 (!).
Well, if you have kids, especially newborns, you do take and send a whole lot of pictures. That alone suggests Apple CSAM thing will have a busy time trying to figure out which is CP and which is just a parent sharing their own kid pictures.
Naturally, it does not help that we now effectively have no privacy.
Naturally, it does not help that we now effectively have no privacy.
You're probably getting downvoted because Apple CSAM does not look at a photo in isolation and "decide" whether it crosses the line into child pornography or not. It's comparing hashes to a child porn database as I understand it.
The reason you're getting down voted, I would guess, is that that is not the way CSAM scanning works.
Apple have a list of photos they know are CSAM, or rather hashes of them, and the look for those and only those on your device.
They also introduced another thing that scans your kid's incoming and outgoing messages for what look like dodgy photos - that does look at general photo content (rather than compare to a list) which has been the source of a lot of the confusion.
(FWIW I still think the CSAM scanning is an incredibly bad idea and horribly slippery slope to start sliding on.)
Apple have a list of photos they know are CSAM, or rather hashes of them, and the look for those and only those on your device.
They also introduced another thing that scans your kid's incoming and outgoing messages for what look like dodgy photos - that does look at general photo content (rather than compare to a list) which has been the source of a lot of the confusion.
(FWIW I still think the CSAM scanning is an incredibly bad idea and horribly slippery slope to start sliding on.)
I don't mind. I do find the reaction interesting though.
In a practical sense, they could have called it anything and since they announced it in the same breath, my mental map keeps it under the same umbrella. It is not on me that Apple communicates poorly.
But lets get past that. The 'dodgy photos' functionality ( because that was indeed what I was referring to vs hash db ) is where it is going to get tricky. I am sure there will be parents, who will absolutely love it. Just as I am sure that there will be ones who think this will not end well.
In a practical sense, they could have called it anything and since they announced it in the same breath, my mental map keeps it under the same umbrella. It is not on me that Apple communicates poorly.
But lets get past that. The 'dodgy photos' functionality ( because that was indeed what I was referring to vs hash db ) is where it is going to get tricky. I am sure there will be parents, who will absolutely love it. Just as I am sure that there will be ones who think this will not end well.
> Apple have a list of photos they know are CSAM, or rather hashes of them
Technically, that government agencies claim are CSAM and the "hash" is highly vulnerable to preimage attacks: I can take random unrelated photos and make them match other hashes, https://github.com/AsuharietYgvar/AppleNeuralHash2ONNX/issue...
This means people can take child porn images and modify them so they match targeted innocent images, and take innocent images and modify them so they match child porn.
Technically, that government agencies claim are CSAM and the "hash" is highly vulnerable to preimage attacks: I can take random unrelated photos and make them match other hashes, https://github.com/AsuharietYgvar/AppleNeuralHash2ONNX/issue...
This means people can take child porn images and modify them so they match targeted innocent images, and take innocent images and modify them so they match child porn.
>> His parents consented for him.
According to the article, there was informal consent but no signed release. I'm was pretty surprised to hear that -- isn't obtaining releases pretty standard for large corporations?
According to the article, there was informal consent but no signed release. I'm was pretty surprised to hear that -- isn't obtaining releases pretty standard for large corporations?
I think things like that were handled quite a bit more loosely back then. If memory serves, the cover of one of the Deftones albums (the one with the girl in the bathing suit I believe?) came from a random shot taken at a party and the subject didn't even know about it until the album was released.
Same situation Matchbox 20's Yourself or Someone Like You, one of the most popular albums of the 90s. The guy on the cover apparently never consented to his photo being used and went after them years later.
>Elden says his parents never signed a release authorising the use of his image on the album.
If that's true, then why isn't he pursuing that as an argument rather than claiming it's child porn?
He can pursue multiple issues in a single lawsuit, it's not weird for some but not all of the claims in a case to be dismissed
Is it really an image of "himself" though? Being a baby is more like a larval form, there isn't really a connection for an audience to make between a photo of a newborn and a photo of an adult.
What I'm trying to get at is usually when you say something like "nude image of himself" we are used to thinking that the image is an identifying one. But a baby picture isn't identifying in the same way, even to yourself, until some one informs you of the connection.
It feels like a different circumstance, you know?
The consent was given by his legal parent. So he should sue them not Nirvana.
Don't know if it is true or not, or how affects claim ... but he claims
>Elden says his parents never signed a release authorising the use of his image on the album.
>Elden says his parents never signed a release authorising the use of his image on the album.
A written signed document is not the only way to make a legal agreement, it's just the most easily referenced and proven one. The parents consented to letting a professional photographer take photos of their child to use in commercial work, and nobody appears to dispute that.
Perhaps he should. Nirvana has more money though and one must operate within the incentive structure of the US legal system.
I think I understand the motivation. Sad state of affairs. We are on our way to total loss of trust in societal institutions, and trying to take full advantage of the incentive structure, without any other considerations. In other words, we are getting to the "fuck it!" phase of the process.
What would he sue them for?
money?
Hah. Yeah.
Sorry I meant, what would be the legal basis for the suit?
Sorry I meant, what would be the legal basis for the suit?
The same argument: He didn't consent to them allowing Nirvana to use the photo.
Nirvana should be covered by his parents giving their consent, since they was his legal guardian. If he doesn't think that consent should have been given he needs to go after the people who gave it. But I don't think that case would go very far either.
Nirvana should be covered by his parents giving their consent, since they was his legal guardian. If he doesn't think that consent should have been given he needs to go after the people who gave it. But I don't think that case would go very far either.
If they didn't have a signed release then they're basically using this without permission which is a civil violation.
Courts will respond that way, minus the profanity. Usually it’s an immediate approval of a motion to dismiss with prejudice which means final decision and don’t dare even argue about it.
It wasn't child porn when it was created, but times change. I have noticed that the BBC has started censoring the image (QI) whereas British productions in the past have not (TheBoatThatRocked). Jurisprudence changes. Since Nevermind was published, even nudity is no longer a requirement for child porn in the US. While I don't agree, I don't think the question is the total slam dunk it was decades ago.
It still isn't child porn. There is nothing sexual or obscene about this picture and the purpose isn't so, either. There are many, many works of arts, including religious ones, in which infants are depicted in the same way.
The term is being used for PR and sensationalistic purposes in relation to a civil lawsuit.
The term is being used for PR and sensationalistic purposes in relation to a civil lawsuit.
Yes; I'm quite confident that this would never be an album cover today. But you can't generally sue of the basis of some past activity that was legal at the time even if it's not today.
But it is being republished daily today. When material is deemed illegal, new copies cannot be created/sold today on the basis that they were legal yesterday.
There would probably be a pretty high bar to get this declared illegal as opposed to sufficiently adjacent as to be controversial on something like an album cover. It pretty clearly does not meet the DOJ definition although other countries, perhaps including the UK, may have stricter/different standards. (And it was and would be obviously illegal to distribute in some countries.)
https://www.justice.gov/criminal-ceos/child-pornography
ADDED: And, no, I would not be putting this album cover in my carry-on to get on a plane. I don't really expect a random TSA agent to be up on legal details of what photography is OK and what isn't.
https://www.justice.gov/criminal-ceos/child-pornography
ADDED: And, no, I would not be putting this album cover in my carry-on to get on a plane. I don't really expect a random TSA agent to be up on legal details of what photography is OK and what isn't.
Don't worry, just hit the next album button (but hope that it doesn't random over to Virgin Killer by the Scorpions).
Yeah. Strip away the context of it being an album cover that's been out for a long time and I wouldn't like to be the person trying to argue with law enforcement or a judge why that photo/artwork is perfectly OK.
Eh I mean. There is a naked photo of this person as an infant, that they inherently didn't consent to, being circulated all over the world + internet.
[deleted]
[deleted]
jes(1)
This album was released when I was in HS and a classmate was asked by a teacher to turn her t-shirt with the album cover inside-out. She asked why and the teacher said it could be CP. She turned the shirt inside-out. I felt the teacher had a reasonable POV.
The point of view is unreasonnable : a child naked is not Porn unless the intent is to make it porn. No one would think to describe a child naked at the beach "porn", why would it be different on an album cover?
"the teacher said it could be CP"
So the POV paraphrased was: someone could consider it CP, I'm not going to argue whether it is or isn't, but it will be disruptive and I'm here to teach and the class to learn so let's nip this in the bud and get on with my lesson.
I thought that was a very reasonable take on the situation which was getting disruptive first period history class. much more reasonable than a suspension or the like.
So the POV paraphrased was: someone could consider it CP, I'm not going to argue whether it is or isn't, but it will be disruptive and I'm here to teach and the class to learn so let's nip this in the bud and get on with my lesson.
I thought that was a very reasonable take on the situation which was getting disruptive first period history class. much more reasonable than a suspension or the like.
I still don't think it's reasonable. Restricting yourself on such banalities feels way too much like "the (prude) terrorists have won"
If someone made the same case for a woman wearing a regular skirt in class, (I hope) everyone would be up in arms, and rightfully so.
If someone made the same case for a woman wearing a regular skirt in class, (I hope) everyone would be up in arms, and rightfully so.
So are there no limits to what a high school student can have on a Tshirt--realizing any such limit will be controversial and probably political to some degree?
(Personally, I had to wear a jacket and tie though, so what do I know.)
(Personally, I had to wear a jacket and tie though, so what do I know.)
There's in fact a U.S. Supreme Court case, Tinker v. Des Moines, about the limits.
The students were wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam War; they prevailed:
> The court observed, "It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate."
> The Court held that for school officials to justify censoring speech, they "must be able to show that [their] action was caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint," that the conduct that would "materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school."
(From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinker_v._Des_Moines_Independe...)
The students were wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam War; they prevailed:
> The court observed, "It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate."
> The Court held that for school officials to justify censoring speech, they "must be able to show that [their] action was caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint," that the conduct that would "materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school."
(From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinker_v._Des_Moines_Independe...)
I'm probably missing something but from me at two HSs and my three kids later in HS clothing connected to drugs, alcohol, smoking, profanity, nudity, and sex were prohibited.
What you're really not missing is that:
- The Supreme Court ruling probably has a fair bit of wiggle room especially where the clothing doesn't make an explicit political statement
- The Supreme Court is not in the classroom. The teacher is.
- The Supreme Court ruling probably has a fair bit of wiggle room especially where the clothing doesn't make an explicit political statement
- The Supreme Court is not in the classroom. The teacher is.
It's school, banning articles of clothing is their bread and butter. When I was in school it was war on spaghetti straps and yoga pants.
But there was no disruption until the teacher interrupted class to make an issue of it?
Something happened first, but I don't know what. I was near the map at the far wall while she and the disruption which initially attracted the teacher were near the door. It could have been comments about the shirt or just any other teenager antics.
Only in the west can an image of a naked baby be intentionally misconstrued as "pornography". It doesn't meet any definitions of pornography, the only reason people think it's "reasonable" is group think.
Only in the "west"? I can think of quite of few countries that are not in the west where that would almost certainly be considered improper and a number where it would probably be outright illegal.
You can "think of quite of few" but you fail to list even a single one. Why even bother to comment if you're just going to say a bunch of nothing?
You think that would be considered acceptable in most Middle Eastern countries? And, indeed, many Asian countries are relatively conservative about public nudity.
JFC, what kind of mad, backwards world do we live in where people consider a photo of a naked baby to be CP? Every family out there has photos of their children naked as babies.
A litigious one that jumps at any opportunity to take offense of there's a chance one can profit from it?
Streisand effect [0] in action, twice.
First, now he'll be even more known.
Second, the vast majority that didn't think about "sex worker" will begin to associate such idea.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
First, now he'll be even more known.
Second, the vast majority that didn't think about "sex worker" will begin to associate such idea.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
The tables will turn on this one. It's not just frivolous, it's damagingly so. World famous album and band beloved by all tarnished by greed and frivolity. Dude will be countersued into the ground.
P.S. I once posted a naked baby pic of me on a dating site and it almost got me in a lot of trouble.
P.S. I once posted a naked baby pic of me on a dating site and it almost got me in a lot of trouble.
What kind of trouble did it almost get you in?
This is like one of those things where it wasn't really associated with anyone specific, until now.
And I do wonder if he TELLS people he randomly meets that he's the nude swimming nirvana baby.
All that being said, people change over their lifetime and this is likely a result of that.
And I do wonder if he TELLS people he randomly meets that he's the nude swimming nirvana baby.
All that being said, people change over their lifetime and this is likely a result of that.
Being serious, think of the mental toll it must be growing up as the naked baby on that cover
He's had years to do this, and didn't. I suspect it'll get dismissed for laches.
The ethical concern is consent. The situation would be very different if they paid him as an 18 year old to use his baby picture but that's not what happened. Using naked children in commercial work is always on sketchy ground ethically.
The Joy of Tech's version:
http://www.joyoftech.com/joyoftech/joyarchives/2829.html
http://www.joyoftech.com/joyoftech/joyarchives/2829.html
It seems like a shameful lawsuit, but it's human nature to do such things. He still is a baby and still is on the hook. Life is hard enough as it is without seeing people you know profit insanely.
This is a nightmare combination of bowdlerization of an important grunge era image and a sad cash grab. I wonder what went on with negotiations/haggling before the court case was filed. Very sad.
Maybe I'm being a cynic, but why wait until the age of 30 to sue.
It's more likely that Corona has taken a large chunk out of the cash flow, and now it would be nice with a boost of the finances.
It's more likely that Corona has taken a large chunk out of the cash flow, and now it would be nice with a boost of the finances.
It's difficult to imagine being ashamed of being the baby on that album cover. That seems like one of the ultimate fun facts to share about yourself.
So ironic to think that this baby would be chasing the money. Makes the artwork more important
This is clearly bad thinking. He should re-take the same picture today , it would sell for much more. Hell, he could take one every year
Edit: Whoa! Look at the guy holding child pornography in his own hands! https://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/world-news/2021/08/2...
This is clearly bad thinking. He should re-take the same picture today , it would sell for much more. Hell, he could take one every year
Edit: Whoa! Look at the guy holding child pornography in his own hands! https://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/world-news/2021/08/2...
He has retaken the picture several times, on anniversaries of the album's release. He seemed to think it was cool and opened doors for him five years ago but I guess he's changed his mind since then.
> Edit: Whoa! Look at the guy holding child pornography
I hope he does not use an iPhone
I hope he does not use an iPhone
Now that would be an NFT worth buying.
If he were smart he could have justed minted an NFT of the cover and sold it to whatever morons are still buying those.
I'm surprised that so many comments here are criticizing the plaintiff. It seems obvious to me that (a) nude images of someone should only be distributed with that person's consent, and that (b) 4-year-olds are not old enough to consent to such things. Whether he has a legal case is another issue, but it seems clear to me that morally Elder is in the right.
The individual in the photo is 4 'months' old. Arguably 4 month old babies being nude should not be a big deal. I suspect in much of the world this is the normal attire for a 4 month old. I guess videos of babies being born (see for instance "Call the Midwife" on BBC) should now require a signed consent from the embryo first?
I think more nuanced question--at what point should consent transfer from the legal guardian to the individual?
In the age of the internet, should consent given on behalf of a minor be in perpetuity?
In the age of the internet, should consent given on behalf of a minor be in perpetuity?
I don't think that consent by a legal guardian is ever sufficient in this sort of case. Distributing nude images of a person should require the consent of that person, not (just) that of a legal guardian.
A non-sexual naked picture of a baby isn't much different from a clothed picture of a baby in terms of societal acceptance, which is why nobody is criticising Nirvana/UMG.
IANAL, but isn't that why the designation of legal guardian exists--to allow someone else to make decisions on behalf of someone else?
I think the point you are trying to make is that a legal guardian cannot offer consent that is unlawful, as such consent would not be valid.
Perhaps that is the angle the plantiff is going for--that any oral consent given is unlawful and voided because the image was used in a pornographic way.
I think the point you are trying to make is that a legal guardian cannot offer consent that is unlawful, as such consent would not be valid.
Perhaps that is the angle the plantiff is going for--that any oral consent given is unlawful and voided because the image was used in a pornographic way.
[deleted]
If you're embarrassed by a baby picture like that, just don't admit its you. Its not like people recognized this kid, right?
"I've been harmed by having completely irrelevant and optional fame available to claim at my discretion" doesn't sound like a strong claim worth lots of money.
"I've been harmed by having completely irrelevant and optional fame available to claim at my discretion" doesn't sound like a strong claim worth lots of money.
Given that he has the name of the album tattooed on his chest, and he agreed to remake the picture as an adult 6 years ago (even offering to be naked, which the photographer rejected) I'm gonna say this is just an attempt to cash in.
Well, in his defense: they taught him to chase money as a baby.
A pretty pathetic attempt at that. If you’re gonna pull this sort of stunt for the cash, at least try for a more impressive number.
It is $150k per defendant, of which there are 15. $7.5m is not a bad grab. Less costs etc.
from where I come from $150k * 15 = $2.25m...
Ah yes. Never trust a mathematician to do sums.
Though this is a bit embarrassing, this is 10^sth * 15^2, I really ought to know my squares. Getting the exponent right is a minor detail though.
Though this is a bit embarrassing, this is 10^sth * 15^2, I really ought to know my squares. Getting the exponent right is a minor detail though.
Ah I misread that, that makes a bit more sense
Math not your strong suit or typo?
> I'm gonna say this is just an attempt to cash in.
A man's gotta have a little money to build his own swimming pool
A man's gotta have a little money to build his own swimming pool
Probably but it sounds like he was roped into it as a young teenager to do the reshoots and I'm guessing if you're struggling it'd be hard to turn down secondary opportunities to make some money.
I don't think you can use that to discount his real complaint, he got his baby photos used on a record and got almost nothing for it.
I don't think you can use that to discount his real complaint, he got his baby photos used on a record and got almost nothing for it.
[deleted]
I give "if you're struggling its hard to turn down money" about as much credence as I give stealing because you're poor.
Especially after saying: "It's always been a positive thing and opened doors for me." He even has a Nevermind tattoo on his chest (at least in the picture in the article, I appreciate it could have been added for one of the number of shoots that recreate the cover).
Yeah, I thought the same. He's probably only being recognized because he himself re-staged the album cover for Nirvana's 10th, 20th, and 25th anniversary.
I don't think the lawsuit will go anywhere, but I'm also not sure how much choice he would have had for the 10th anniversary cover. He would have still been young - what, 12 or 13 at the oldest? - and could have easily been forced into it by his parents.
But I am pretty sure that - as long as he wasn't fairly poor (which warps perception) - he could have told them no on the 20th and 25th.
But I am pretty sure that - as long as he wasn't fairly poor (which warps perception) - he could have told them no on the 20th and 25th.
How opportunistic. But I suppose one has got to "make a living" somehow...
Honestly, whether you make it or not in this world is sheer dumb luck for the most part. More power to the people in the neck brace suing the city for a million dollars for the 1 inch pot hole that kicked them off their bike. I'd be right there too if I saw I was potentially leaving money on the table even if the premise was a reach. It's a dog eat dog world out there and you gotta look out for your own.
Nudity is not inherently sexual. It's your default state as a human.
If it's any comfort to Mr. Elden, I have never seen the album cover.
They should give him this dollar bill (should be worth more now).
He should have sued his parents.
Quick, let's add that photo to the NCEC(sp?) database and have Apple scan all iPhones worldwide for it!
Another way of saying I desperately need money no matter how stupid the method
He must be broke.
Funny how the incriminating album cover is a prophetic message in itself; the person portrayed on it chasing after money.
On one hand I get it, he didn't consent and what not. But the guy is 30. Why didn't he sue 10 years ago? I have feeling it's because he's trying to ride the wave of political correctness and cancel culture...
On one hand I get it, he didn't consent and what not. But the guy is 30. Why didn't he sue 10 years ago? I have feeling it's because he's trying to ride the wave of political correctness and cancel culture...
That’s because it’s all a giant reach, and in reality, is probably the most famous thing he’s ever done, and thus he can’t get past it.
Smells like money grab
Looks like he never grew up.
Claiming everything is child pornography is damaging to stopping actual child pornography.
It may not be as widespread, but this is just as just as damaging as QAnon's "Save the Children" "movement"[0].
If he got paid 200$ back in the day, and thinks he deserves more money, that is fairly simple case to make and most people would agree.
He is not helping his case by shouting wolf. How would you feel about this article if you or one of your children were an actual sexual assault victim?
[0] https://www.deseret.com/indepth/2020/10/17/21452574/qanon-q-...
If he got paid 200$ back in the day, and thinks he deserves more money, that is fairly simple case to make and most people would agree.
He is not helping his case by shouting wolf. How would you feel about this article if you or one of your children were an actual sexual assault victim?
[0] https://www.deseret.com/indepth/2020/10/17/21452574/qanon-q-...
That's the same as a designer charging 200 bucks for a logo and then when the company becomes a multi national comes back asking for more. You agreed (in his case, his parents agreed) with the said price. Also naked baby and consider it's child pornography it's quite a big stretch. People are so sick.
> That's the same as a designer charging 200 bucks for a logo and then when the company becomes a multi national comes back asking for more. You agreed (in his case, his parents agreed) with the said price.
I'll agree it's similar, but the fact that his parents made the decision for him does make it different.
I'll agree it's similar, but the fact that his parents made the decision for him does make it different.
> I'll agree it's similar, but the fact that his parents made the decision for him does make it different.
We should tread carefully with this kind of cases. It's an obvious money grab from his part, everyone knows it. But also, due to the fact that we can't agree with everyone that comes publicly disagreeing with the parent's decisions.
We should tread carefully with this kind of cases. It's an obvious money grab from his part, everyone knows it. But also, due to the fact that we can't agree with everyone that comes publicly disagreeing with the parent's decisions.
Any lawyers want to weigh in. Surely his parents signed his rights away for the 200 no?
This man can never set foot in a vintage record shop again!
He could just settle for rights to the cover photo.
Then he could mint it as an NFT and auction it for millions (or peanuts depending on the market at the time).
Then he could mint it as an NFT and auction it for millions (or peanuts depending on the market at the time).
Why bother with the rights? He could just auction the concept of him on the cover photo. It's all meaningless anyway.
I remember the NFT hype from 3 months ago. Is it dead yet?
Also what happened to Chia?
Also what happened to Chia?
I doubt this has any legal standing, but I think the record company should have "did the right thing" and gave him some royalties. At least once it was clear that this was going to be one of the biggest albums of all time.
Legal standing:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law)
"In law, standing or locus standing is a condition that a party seeking a legal remedy must show they have by demonstrating to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case."
The guy is on the picture. He has probably been butt of jokes his entire life. He has legal standing.
Legal standing has nothing to do with whether he is or isn't right. It just allows him to present the case.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law)
"In law, standing or locus standing is a condition that a party seeking a legal remedy must show they have by demonstrating to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case."
The guy is on the picture. He has probably been butt of jokes his entire life. He has legal standing.
Legal standing has nothing to do with whether he is or isn't right. It just allows him to present the case.
Oh, I guess I meant that I don't think he has a chance of winning. Thank you for pointing that out, I didn't realize standing was an actual legal term.
It that's child pornography wait until you discover the zillions of pictures painted in Europe since the Middle Ages depicting nude people from a full range of ages just... standing naked with no sexual content.
You know, the eye of the beholder...
You know, the eye of the beholder...
> He also alleges the nude image constitutes child pornography.
I hope he wins and creates a precedent so the degree of absurd in this field gets serious and the shit hits the fan. This would be so fun.
PS: I don't advocate actual child porn but I do advocate nudity.
I hope he wins and creates a precedent so the degree of absurd in this field gets serious and the shit hits the fan. This would be so fun.
PS: I don't advocate actual child porn but I do advocate nudity.
Uh, thats an interesting idea. Now I hope he wins, too!
How many other people are still questioning how the album cover was ever approved and distributed at all? Yes, I know the article explains it was not illegal to do so, but still.
Edit: Touched a nerve, apparently.
Edit: Touched a nerve, apparently.
>Geffen were concerned that the infant's penis, visible in the photo, would cause offense, and prepared an alternate cover without it; they relented when Cobain said the only compromise he would accept would be a sticker covering the penis reading: "If you're offended by this, you must be a closet pedophile.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevermind#Artwork
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevermind#Artwork
>"If you're offended by this, you must be a closet pedophile."
Clearly. Because apparently you can't think "Wow, how did this get approved? It seems like such a violation of societal norms. I wonder how they managed to do it."
Clearly. Because apparently you can't think "Wow, how did this get approved? It seems like such a violation of societal norms. I wonder how they managed to do it."
As long as the thread is talking about money grabs, the cover chosen is the original one.
The one Cobain really wanted was a picture a birth which was deemed too graphic. Also consider this album wasn’t expected to be anywhere close to the success it was in terms of sales. They ran out of copies for a little bit soon after it was released.
Geffen was hoping it could sell maybe 200,000 copies globally to a mainly underground/indie audience and it wouldn’t get picked up by the mainstream. For the follow up album the band agreed to change a song name and modify album art so Wal-Mart would carry it.
Geffen was hoping it could sell maybe 200,000 copies globally to a mainly underground/indie audience and it wouldn’t get picked up by the mainstream. For the follow up album the band agreed to change a song name and modify album art so Wal-Mart would carry it.
Note this same guy re-created the album cover only 5 years ago. He didn't seem to have much of a problem at that time.
https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-37478523