Nirvana 'Nevermind' album baby sues for being exploited as a minor
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
+1 That album made tons - a couple mil is nothing, really. |
Anonymous
It made tons because of the music, not the cover. |
Anonymous
| Way to late the game and he didn't have any problem coming out years ago that he was the kid on the cover. If he said nothing, no one would have ever known. In this day and age, any kid who saw it would likely assume it was some kind of photoshopped baby not a real kid anyway ... |
Anonymous
It's really only 150k each. That seems a more equitable amount than $200 his father was paid for one of the most famous albums covers in the world.
|
Anonymous
| He should get royalties for the photo. $300 GTFO |
Anonymous
Agree. He's been telling people and giving interviews about it his whole life. He's clearly used it as a way to get noticed. Otherwise, who would ever know? |
Anonymous
|
I'm so conflicted on this. In one sense, no one has to know it was him in order for him to have been exploited. It's still his image and HE knows it's him. But it does feel sketchy that he in essence tried to become famous off the very image he claims exploited him. But I wonder if those two things have anything to do with one another legally.
But for him to say it's caused him distress when he put himself out there "forever legally tying my name to this album cover" in a much more concrete way is just disingenuous to me. |
Anonymous
Blame his parents, they made the deal |
Anonymous
| Blame the parents. They're the ones that sold your wang for the world to see for $300. |
Anonymous
| LOL Spencer Elden is 30 and just realized he's broke and jobless. Time to try to cash in. |
Anonymous
| It was dumb for the parents to ever even tell him it was him. They had to have foreseen this—heck, everyone involved had to have foreseen this. |
Anonymous
That's why parents are legally authorized to consent for a child, like for medical care, benefits, use of a laser tag facility. How does anyone know it is him? Who has exploited the connection between the random infant photo and this person? |
Anonymous
| I agree with the baby. |
Anonymous
|
If they had slapped a photo of a basket of strawberries on the album cover, the album still would have been a hit.
The cover of the album has nothing to do with the success of the music. He (and his family) have used this photo as a way of making themselves more than they are -- he was a baby model, no different than the Gerber baby. Honestly, I've seen that cover a million times and never thought or give consideration to the fact there's a penis on it. It's a BABY. No one would even know it's him except for the fact he's used it as his calling card all of his life -- even to the point of tattooing the name of the album on his chest. Maybe he just needs to grow up and get a life. |
Anonymous
|
So, multiple things can be true
It does seem like a money grab, sure, welcome to American civil courts lol, BUT the dude does have a point, and maybe a viable case. And yes, the cover art image has always been creepy and weird and wrong; the image will continue to age poorly and be judged harshly by history, AND the music is great and it’s an extraordinary album regardless if they’d chosen different art. |