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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

I agree. Naked baby maybe Ok but making sure his penis is showing is just …. Wrong.

[Anonymous]

Shouldn;t he be more pissed at his dad who took the $200 for the picture?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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?

I don't believe that. Who lets their baby be passed around in a pool, naked, with someone taking pictures and never asks "hey what are you going to do with the photo"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yep and this is why I doubt he will be successful with his lawsuit
He enjoyed the fame from it and didn't complain

[Anonymous]

Personally I'd be fine with my penis being immortalized on an album cover if it meant I played a small part in one of the most influential albums of the 90's, or all time for that matter.
That being said, I think he's entitled to the money given how much success the album had and the fact that that the parents weren't even paid four figures for the original photo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

+ 1

[Anonymous]

That album cover is so iconic.

I would be proud if I had been the baby featured.

I think him suing is outrageous.
Though perhaps he should get royalties for his image being used….??
Not sure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

I don't believe that. Who lets their baby be passed around in a pool, naked, with someone taking pictures and never asks "hey what are you going to do with the photo"

Apparently his parents. They knew the photographer, they knew what it was going to be used for. It doesn’t matter if you believe it, the parents have confirmed it. They were paid for the rights, it’s on them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

I don't believe that. Who lets their baby be passed around in a pool, naked, with someone taking pictures and never asks "hey what are you going to do with the photo"

Apparently his parents. They knew the photographer, they knew what it was going to be used for. It doesn’t matter if you believe it, the parents have confirmed it. They were paid for the rights, it’s on them.

So they knew. Like we said. They knew and they were paid. And it’s a baby. Who cares if it’s naked. It’s a baby. Jesus you people are crazy and living in some alternative reality. Grow the heck up. Now this loser is going to waste the court’s time with this frivolous law suit. Disgusting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Still chasing that dollar after all these years.

Awesome post!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

I don't believe that. Who lets their baby be passed around in a pool, naked, with someone taking pictures and never asks "hey what are you going to do with the photo"

Apparently his parents. They knew the photographer, they knew what it was going to be used for. It doesn’t matter if you believe it, the parents have confirmed it. They were paid for the rights, it’s on them.

So they knew. Like we said. They knew and they were paid. And it’s a baby. Who cares if it’s naked. It’s a baby. Jesus you people are crazy and living in some alternative reality. Grow the heck up. Now this loser is going to waste the court’s time with this frivolous law suit. Disgusting.

+ 1000. How old are you people to have never heard of embarrassing naked baby pics?? For Pete's sake, there is a Leave it to Beaver episode with this as the plot. What was the going rate for models on album covers the year this came out?

[Anonymous]

Update: Nirvana wins, and the naked adult baby loses his suit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

I don't believe that. Who lets their baby be passed around in a pool, naked, with someone taking pictures and never asks "hey what are you going to do with the photo"

Apparently his parents. They knew the photographer, they knew what it was going to be used for. It doesn’t matter if you believe it, the parents have confirmed it. They were paid for the rights, it’s on them.

So they knew. Like we said. They knew and they were paid. And it’s a baby. Who cares if it’s naked. It’s a baby. Jesus you people are crazy and living in some alternative reality. Grow the heck up. Now this loser is going to waste the court’s time with this frivolous law suit. Disgusting.

+ 1000. How old are you people to have never heard of embarrassing naked baby pics?? For Pete's sake, there is a Leave it to Beaver episode with this as the plot. What was the going rate for models on album covers the year this came out?

I know this case is over, but I just want to point out they didn’t know how it would be used. Only the baby’s dad was present and gave consent, and the photographer only said it was for a record, not for Nirvana. They found out several months later when the record label sent them the record with a teddy bear.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

I don't believe that. Who lets their baby be passed around in a pool, naked, with someone taking pictures and never asks "hey what are you going to do with the photo"

Apparently his parents. They knew the photographer, they knew what it was going to be used for. It doesn’t matter if you believe it, the parents have confirmed it. They were paid for the rights, it’s on them.

So they knew. Like we said. They knew and they were paid. And it’s a baby. Who cares if it’s naked. It’s a baby. Jesus you people are crazy and living in some alternative reality. Grow the heck up. Now this loser is going to waste the court’s time with this frivolous law suit. Disgusting.

+ 1000. How old are you people to have never heard of embarrassing naked baby pics?? For Pete's sake, there is a Leave it to Beaver episode with this as the plot. What was the going rate for models on album covers the year this came out?

I know this case is over, but I just want to point out they didn’t know how it would be used. Only the baby’s dad was present and gave consent, and the photographer only said it was for a record, not for Nirvana. They found out several months later when the record label sent them the record with a teddy bear.

Nirvana was an unknown band at the time, even if they did mention it, everyone would say who?