Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand how Nirvana used the baby’s photo w/out getting signed permission from his parents??!

Most especially when that album cover was (and still is!) so darn iconic.
How does this happen?

Anyway the guy should get a cut of the money - though not for the reasoning he demanded.
He should get something monetary for the fact that his picture was used to market an album.

However even if he never gets a red cent, how many freakin’ people get to brag that they were THAT baby on the cover of THAT album cover???!! 👍🏽
He will probably be more famous than the Gerber baby!

I guess, but this seems to be his whole identity, between the 6-7 times he's recreated it, and the tattoo.

Final update:

Statute of Limitations had expired

https://apple.news/AAn-mkaEJR5-mwEPlhxD6pg

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

Update:

He’s given another change to amend his complaint:

https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/judge-gives-nirvana-baby-last-chance-to-revive-lawsuit

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

I don't understand it is the human body and the taboo around that is ridiculous
Babies love to swim. I don't think they even need bathing suits

Who cares about his penis, the picture is great. Perhaps you are somewhat perverted to even fixate on that

+1 So lame.

Anonymous wrote:

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

Didn’t expect a different outcome. His parents signed a release seems like his issue should be with his parents not Nirvana.

The guy is more known for his lawsuit than as "that" baby on the Nirvana album. Maybe that's what he wanted all along - attention - even if it's negative. Abd the Nirvana album gets press. Win for them for sure.

Anonymous wrote:

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

I don't understand it is the human body and the taboo around that is ridiculous
Babies love to swim. I don't think they even need bathing suits

Who cares about his penis, the picture is great. Perhaps you are somewhat perverted to even fixate on that

I don’t understand how Nirvana used the baby’s photo w/out getting signed permission from his parents??!

Most especially when that album cover was (and still is!) so darn iconic.
How does this happen?

Anyway the guy should get a cut of the money - though not for the reasoning he demanded.
He should get something monetary for the fact that his picture was used to market an album.

However even if he never gets a red cent, how many freakin’ people get to brag that they were THAT baby on the cover of THAT album cover???!! 👍🏽
He will probably be more famous than the Gerber baby!

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

Didn’t expect a different outcome. His parents signed a release seems like his issue should be with his parents not Nirvana.