Nirvana 'Nevermind' album baby sues for being exploited as a minor

[Anonymous]

And the baby in that photo is chasing money,
That art director was truly visionary.

[Anonymous]

This dude needs to grow up, get a J-O-B and move out of his mother's basement.

Clearly he had no issue with this for many, many years.

And the TATOO! If I thought I was exploited as a child on an album cover I would never have name of said album tattooed on my chest.

Just another grifter. Sad.

[Anonymous]

As far as naked baby 90s album covers go, I prefer Sebadoh’s Bakesale. At least they had the good sense to use a baby photo of lead singer Lou Barlow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

It’s not creepy, weird or wrong. It’s a baby. A naked baby is not creepy or weird. Its natural. It’s a great, iconic album cover. The dude has no case either.

[Anonymous]

Article I read said his parents received $200, but they didn’t know what the photo was being used for. Do we know for sure they signed releases?

[Anonymous]

Ok, but what did he think about the album?

[Anonymous]

His parents have had 30 years to go to court to get more money for the photo they handed over for $200.

Nirvana should sue him for copyright infringement for his crappy tattoo with the album name on it. That would be about as valid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

It’s not creepy, weird or wrong. It’s a baby. A naked baby is not creepy or weird. Its natural. It’s a great, iconic album cover. The dude has no case either.

Exactly.

[Anonymous]

Didn't he reach out to the former band members and Nirvana license holders and try to get them to support his art first? So this lawsuit is more about being ticked that he couldn't get them to do a business deal than about his poor wounded exploited feels. He came across as a huge grifter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I mean, would you want your baby’s genitals dangling from millions of peoples walls ? Or screenshotted for pervs across the world to jerk off too ?

Blame the parents of the kid. And the band. Give the kid $100 million . Any child’s genitals should never be out for full display

What a sick messed up world we live in.

+1

[Anonymous]

It sounds like the guy has some issues and they may be due to this album cover, but regardless he's blaming them on the album cover. I do think it stinks that he never received money for his likeness and the fact that his parents were paid a paltry sum doesn't change that. Nirvana should give him some money but not settle if the legal claims are as meritless as they seem. They clearly have enough.

[Anonymous]

Hope this link works. Enjoy!


https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fthehardtimes.net%2Fculture%2Fweird-transparent-angel-lady-from-in-utero-cover-also-announces-lawsuit%2F&h=AT1UnBh9DM_NE694tQ49szE_oMgdKGVIsbT4SQCelc16HffP9m0D8Q-hykaKq-rViSTTZvLlsafNL5WWEqjU_6aTdOm0Chfqqtr4qjU300dKMPOX3rKJkGvEZEkQ&s=1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was in high school when the album came out so please excuse me if my memory is hazy...

Wasn't there a black rectangular box covering his genitals when the CD was sold in stores? For some reason, I think I remember it that way? I don't remember seeing his genitals on the cover when I was a teen. Or could I just have totally forgotten?

That's what I recall too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, would you want your baby’s genitals dangling from millions of peoples walls ? Or screenshotted for pervs across the world to jerk off too ?

Blame the parents of the kid. And the band. Give the kid $100 million . Any child’s genitals should never be out for full display

What a sick messed up world we live in.

+1

Yea, well, wait until all these tick tock, YouTube, Mommy Blog kids grow up and realize what a legacy their parents have created for them. It ain't going to be pretty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hope this link works. Enjoy!


https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fthehardtimes.net%2Fculture%2Fweird-transparent-angel-lady-from-in-utero-cover-also-announces-lawsuit%2F&h=AT1UnBh9DM_NE694tQ49szE_oMgdKGVIsbT4SQCelc16HffP9m0D8Q-hykaKq-rViSTTZvLlsafNL5WWEqjU_6aTdOm0Chfqqtr4qjU300dKMPOX3rKJkGvEZEkQ&s=1

Or this one: https://thehardtimes.net/culture/weird-transparent-angel-lady-from-in-utero-cover-also-announces-lawsuit/