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

[Anonymous]

1) Bad parents (to allow the shot)

2) Lax management on the part of the record company. Releases are required for all commercial photos (Legal knows better).

[Anonymous]

Eh. They shouldn’t have had a naked baby as an album cover. Very poor judgement. I wouldn’t want it to be me and I’d probably sue too.

That Led Zepplin cover is extremely disturbing. The little girl is definitely sexualized. She should consider suing as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:1) Bad parents (to allow the shot)

2) Lax management on the part of the record company. Releases are required for all commercial photos (Legal knows better).

Why do you assume there’s no release?

[Anonymous]

Just want to say, I am most disturbed by the fact that they threw the babies in the pool. I know they were right there, but it only takes a minute to aspirate water and drown.

I also get where he is coming from- a lot of people made money from the album, never him, and he didn’t have any say in the matter. The fact that he recreated the photo and talked about it a lot doesn’t negate that for me- it seems like it loomed large in his life and was something that he struggled to process. I dunno if he has a legal case- probably depends on what, if anything, his parents signed - but I sympathize and I hope they throw him some cash.

[Anonymous]

Any new parent on here that would put their naked child on an album cover right now?

No for me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just want to say, I am most disturbed by the fact that they threw the babies in the pool. I know they were right there, but it only takes a minute to aspirate water and drown.

I also get where he is coming from- a lot of people made money from the album, never him, and he didn’t have any say in the matter. The fact that he recreated the photo and talked about it a lot doesn’t negate that for me- it seems like it loomed large in his life and was something that he struggled to process. I dunno if he has a legal case- probably depends on what, if anything, his parents signed - but I sympathize and I hope they throw him some cash.

He probably feels conflicted about it.

Would I want to see myself on a wall of a music store?

It makes a good story but,

Did I consent?

Who profited?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) Bad parents (to allow the shot)

2) Lax management on the part of the record company. Releases are required for all commercial photos (Legal knows better).

Why do you assume there’s no release?

If there was a release, the parents would have given permission to allow their child’s naked image to be used for commercial purposes and would have agreed to waive any claims on profits, etc. children can’t sign legal contracts so the parents have the authority to sign for them. P

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You wouldn’t know it was him unless he told you, and I bet he tells everyone. Loser.

This. He states the album cover ruined his life since everyone knows he the nirvana baby. People didn’t know until he told them, then recreated the iconic scene like every 5 years since he was 15 or 20… that’s on him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

This. The man has CHOSEN to draw attention to it being him on the cover, going to the media for years, doing replications of it as an adult, and of course the giant tattoo - and clearly trying to profit off of it himself years later.

I've never been a fan of the album cover, but the only people that exploited him were his parents.

I think it would be a kind gesture to give him 100k as a gift, maybe, since the album has been so popular (because of the music, not the cover). But he isn't owed it by any means.

All of this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) Bad parents (to allow the shot)

2) Lax management on the part of the record company. Releases are required for all commercial photos (Legal knows better).

Why do you assume there’s no release?

NP here. I would be surprised if there wasn't a release, and if there wasn't then this guy might have a case. Who owned the publishing rights?

BTW the record company got Kathleen Hanna to sign a release before the album came out, because she's then that came up with the phrase "Kurt smells like Teen Spirit" (after the deodorant).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

This. The man has CHOSEN to draw attention to it being him on the cover, going to the media for years, doing replications of it as an adult, and of course the giant tattoo - and clearly trying to profit off of it himself years later.

I've never been a fan of the album cover, but the only people that exploited him were his parents.

I think it would be a kind gesture to give him 100k as a gift, maybe, since the album has been so popular (because of the music, not the cover). But he isn't owed it by any means.

All of this.

Nah. It would be kinder to have the guy dropped off a cliff, or better yet, thrown into a pool naked and drowned with a dollar bill stuffed in his mouth. Waste of space.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) Bad parents (to allow the shot)

2) Lax management on the part of the record company. Releases are required for all commercial photos (Legal knows better).

Why do you assume there’s no release?

If there was a release, the parents would have given permission to allow their child’s naked image to be used for commercial purposes and would have agreed to waive any claims on profits, etc. children can’t sign legal contracts so the parents have the authority to sign for them. P

According to the articles the parents signed a release and were paid.

[Anonymous]

I think the photo is creepy.

[Anonymous]

Still chasing that dollar after all these years.

[Anonymous]

I've given this more thought over the last few days, and I do think he is entitled to something. To me, if feels similar to the reckoning we've had with other abuse/exploitation scenarios. Maybe he'd been conditioned to think of it as a cool thing, but looking at it with today's eyes it really does not seem cool. Especially the description of trying to make sure his penis was visible in the shot--it seems really icky and not okay. There's no way to take back that image so the only recourse is to make sure he is compensated for it in a more appropriate way.