A little off topic, but I rewatched that movie in theaters last week and good god it does not hold up at all.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Naked Nirvana Baby Sues Nirvana For Child Pornography
- Thread starter DrForester
- Start date
- Entertainment
A little off topic, but I rewatched that movie in theaters last week and good god it does not hold up at all.
Haha, don't worry.
And i agree. I don't think he did himself any favors here.
The weird thing is, if you didn't go around claiming credit for it, absolutely no one would know or care who said baby was. Babies are like as generic as humans get. If you put my baby photo among 10 contemporary baby photos, I wouldn't be able to pick myself out.
Just covering my bases, who knows what you might get sued for nowadays :p
And totally. This doesn't exactly make him seem like a great guy. As others pointed out, guess Nirvana had a great deal of foresight when they put him on the cover.
he definitely should get something, it's one of the most iconic albums of all time and he never got paid for it ($200 given to his parents decades ago probably doesn't count).
I think its okay to want some quick cash off of being part of legendary art but thats wack as FUCK to label a naked baby as "child porn". I have no idea if he's being sincere there but regardless sexualizing the human body to the point that a baby is "sexy" is insane
It does.
Also if he has any negative side effects, he's the one to blame, nobody can tell it's him from the cover.
Also want to state, that he clearly still is a baby.
If he should be suing anybody it's his parents, but just based on the facts here someone thinks they can make a buck out of this by suing the members of the band.
It also doesn't qualify as child sexual abuse media / child porn. It's not prurient, and naked children have appeared in art, photos and otherwise, for centuries in a similar way.
It also doesn't qualify as child sexual abuse media / child porn. It's not prurient, and naked children have appeared in art, photos and otherwise, for centuries in a similar way.
Ridiculous.
Seriously. Whoever thinks this are the ones with issues, not the other way around.
Seriously. Whoever thinks this are the ones with issues, not the other way around.
This guy has done interviews bragging about being on that cover and tattooed a reference to it on his body. He is totally full of shit.
I don't blame them. I'd probably be uncomfortable with a photo of my child dong out there for everyone to see. I don't know if I would call it pornography, but there is probably some sort of legal ground somewhere.
Even if he previously said he is ok with it, it doesn't sound like he was ever compensated.
Even if he previously said he is ok with it, it doesn't sound like he was ever compensated.
This is really low. Not only has the guy seemingly been alright with this for years, recreating the photograph and never once speaking negatively about it (to my knowledge) and has even used it for positive attention for himself, but the accusation is for one of the most vile things a person can do.
This sounds completely implausible as a case due to it being art, I wonder if he's banking on the fact the act being accused is so vile that they'll reach a quick settlement to make it go away?
Sounds really shitty to me.
This sounds completely implausible as a case due to it being art, I wonder if he's banking on the fact the act being accused is so vile that they'll reach a quick settlement to make it go away?
Sounds really shitty to me.
It's actually beautiful the way it's worked out like that, indeed.
Don't be ridiculous.... you think at the time Nirvana, their management or label had any idea what was going to happen with that album? The first print run was something ridiculous like 10,000 copies. If the parents had signed some contract entitling them to future percentage of royalites then great, but they didn't.
This will probably just be settled out of court I would think. Dave Grohl will probably throw some money at him to shut him up and move on. I'm sure that's what this dude is banking on.
I hope no one settles because I don't want to see this guy earn a dime from this lawsuit. What a disgusting claim, that he essentially admits he made because he's upset that Dave and Krist don't wanna party with him and because he couldn't leverage the picture into enough fame to pick up chicks from it.
Don't let irony get in the way from getting paid.
Everyone else that contributed to the album got paid.
Ah, so it was ok when he was 20 and girls were easily impressed, but now that he's 30 and women are looking for stability it's not.
Yeah, I thought that was an incredibly odd answer.
Maybe he is a bit embarrassed about it now. Fine!
But it sounds like he's been happy to use it as a bit of a brag - also fine - but is unhappy that this alone hasn't been enough...
Idk, there's maybe something to the bit about his parents allegedly having no clue what the photo was going to be used for when it was taken (assuming they didn't sign some blanket agreement allowing the photographer to do whatever with the picture when they accepted the $200, which, I would imagine they probably did).
But the way the lawyer describes the Nevermind cover as some perverted, horny thing is uh, dumb? It's a candid, floating, naked baby. If that particular photo is eliciting a sexual response akin to pornography, that kind of says more about the viewer's perversions than Nirvana's. I mean even Kurt seemed to have felt that way:
It doesn't seem like a particularly strong case, especially at the angle they're going at. His comments around this seems to imply he's more uncomfortable with the fact that he hasn't gotten a payday being the Nevermind baby, not that he was exploited and abused by being the Nevermind baby. Which is fine, sure, but it's certainly different from alleging the creation and distribution of child pornography. It doesn't help that the guy's been willingly doing remake shoots for most of his life and even got a 'Nevermind' chest tattoo either methinks.
But the way the lawyer describes the Nevermind cover as some perverted, horny thing is uh, dumb? It's a candid, floating, naked baby. If that particular photo is eliciting a sexual response akin to pornography, that kind of says more about the viewer's perversions than Nirvana's. I mean even Kurt seemed to have felt that way:
It doesn't seem like a particularly strong case, especially at the angle they're going at. His comments around this seems to imply he's more uncomfortable with the fact that he hasn't gotten a payday being the Nevermind baby, not that he was exploited and abused by being the Nevermind baby. Which is fine, sure, but it's certainly different from alleging the creation and distribution of child pornography. It doesn't help that the guy's been willingly doing remake shoots for most of his life and even got a 'Nevermind' chest tattoo either methinks.
Last edited:
The difference in 10 years. From "that defining 90s album" to a graphic tshirt found at Urban Outfitters.
He's been milking that photo for years, using reshoots to try to increase his celebrity among fans, doing anniversary editions of the shoot, etc. Maybe it is just me but I don't think he was a massive contributor to the legacy of the album by being a random kid on the cover image. Did his parents not sign an agreement and/or not get paid for the photoshoot?
Nobody would even know it was him if he didn't come out yelling "Hey everybody, it's ME!"
