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.
Anonymous wrote:His lawyers are using the child pornography angle by stating in the lawsuit that this image makes him look like a sex worker, since it shows him(as a 4 month old infant) reaching for money. That’s a stretch. The message behind this album cover was all about the evils of capitalism. Kurt Cobain said that several times when he was interviewed. And one more thing. It is a well established legal doctrine that most photographs of babies unclothed are not to be considered sexualised. I think it applies in this context.
Anonymous wrote:There was a contract and his dad got paid. His dad obviously consented. End of story on that front.
Now if you want to argue that ethically they should have covered his genitals…sure, that’s a different story.
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.
He only has a case if his parents did not sign a disclaimer and take payment. If they did, he was a minor, and that's how it works. The parents made a decision for him. He's mad at the wrong people
Anonymous wrote:I was going to say 2.5 million wasn't very much
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.
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.