If you follow the link through to the New York Post interview that BBC article is based on, and then watch the actual interview, you can see he's pretty fucking conflicted about it even then. The recreations could easily be him trying to take ownership of something he feels conflicted about as a way of exerting control over something he had no ability to consent to.
Quotes from that interview:
Q: "What's it like knowing all these people have seen you naked?"
A: "What's it like knowing all these people have seen my baby penis? When I was a baby? Well, I'm not really a baby anymore, so I have to think it's not me or something. But it's a trip that a lot of people have seen my baby penis, as a baby. I went to a baseball game at the Dodgers, and I had a moment where I was looking out and thinking 'All these people have seen my baby penis, when I was a baby'. It's pretty... pretty crazy. It'd be nice to have a quarter for all the people who have seen my baby penis. But, you know, there's all kinds of puns you could throw on that. But... you know... maybe it doesn't matter though, it's cool to be a part of that recipe for success. Makes you think you could do it again. That might not happy, but it's a pretty big thing, to be a part of, low key, but it definitely trips you out. But then I try not to think about it, because it's not that big of a deal, there's a lot of things going on that are more important."
I mean, it goes on, but to me that reads as someone struggling to come to terms with something that happened to them when they couldn't consent. Most people would not be okay with having their naked image broadcast to the world before they could consent. And then add in the idea that others made a ton of money off content that used their naked image, and they saw almost none of that... it's understandable.
> It's not the first time Spencer has been asked to recreate the image - he has posed three times before for the album's 10th, 17th and 20th anniversaries.
> "I said to the photographer, 'Let's do it naked.' But he thought that would be weird, so I wore my swim shorts," Spencer told the New York Post.
If his parents didn’t sign a release then there is a claim. It doesn't matter if the subject felt good about it for some time. Actually, in your mind, how is that related? Its hard for me to relate so can you elaborate?
The additional claim of it being child pornography is not strong and is to get them to settle faster. Although he says there was an agreement about covering the genitals that seems broken, if there is no document that will be the only tricky part about the case (just in general contractual stipulations), but does also bolster the settlement claim.
> Elden alleges his "true identity and legal name are forever tied to the commercial sexual exploitation he experienced as a minor which has been distributed and sold worldwide from the time he was a baby to the present day".
Absolutely had no idea what the legal name of the naked baby on the cover of Nevermind was. But now I do!
> Non-sexualised photos of infants are generally not considered child pornography under US law. However, Elden's lawyer, Robert Y. Lewis, argues that the inclusion of the dollar bill (which was superimposed after the photograph was taken) makes the minor seem "like a sex worker".
This (the dollar as a sex worker) seems to a difficult position to hold. We’ll see what will happen in court.
Edit: I’ve always thought the dollar was here to say “everyone want to be rich, also newborns”, or something similar, never thought the newborn as a sex worker.
Even if it _did_ suggest that, the conclusion that that would make it pornographic is very silly.
Such a thing would still most probably be intended as a critical observation about the sorts of people that innocent babies become, rather than a literal depiction of a baby prostitute.
I thought the implication was quite clear: a (somewhat jejune) critique of consumerist society by implying we're made to chase the "almighty dollar" from a very young age.
The lawyer, this Robert Y. Lewis, seems to be a real sick person. I'm not keeping my kids in his vicinity. What if something makes him think they are underage sex workers and approach them with a dollar to buy the services from them?
LOL! I wonder if, having a dirty mind like that to make that association, should auto-add you to some child predator list. None of this is sane, but in this crazy witch hunt, the witch--hunters themselves are not excluded.
This, to me, looks like a case where both parties are "wrong". I think its wrong to put photos of people who cannot (or have not) agreed in the public, especially photos of children, even more so when its not just some publication, but your damn Album cover. Also looking at you, scorpions.
But I also think the "the dollar makes it look like a sex worker" spin is ridicoulus. Sounds to me like a claim that just exists to spin up the media and make sure the original claim ("you did not have the right wo put that image on that cover without covering") gets through.
So yeah, I guess that guy should get some of the Nirvana money. But cut the sex worker crap.
Tell that to Mila Kunis (Baywatch at age 11) the Olsen twins (Full House as literal babies) Kaley Cuoco (first film appearance at 11yo) and thousands of other sucessful people who got thier big breaks as children. Children are part of the entertainment industry and always have been. An industry without them would look very strange.
Harry Potter, but Harry is 18yo on his first day at Hogwarts. Every family sitcom disappears. And what about work entirely created by kids? I guess highschool drama clubs are out too. This gets very strange very quickly.
> I think its wrong to put photos of people who cannot (or have not) agreed in the public, especially photos of children (...)
The article mentions that the plaintiff's parents were paid $200 by a photographer who was a friend of the family to have a photoshoot,and go as far as claiming that they were unaware of the whole pro photoshoot they held at the pool and were paid $200 to join was a photoshoot.
They also state that the record company even gave the plaintiff's family a commemorative record and a teddy bear a couple of months after the album release.
From this newspiece alone, and ignoring the fact that the plaintiff is known for having been milking his role in Nirvana's album cover since ever, it's hard to believe that a) the plaintiff and his whole family were not fully aware they willingly participated in a commercial photoshoot for which they were paid for, b) the plaintiff had an epiphany and change of heart regarding the event and suddenly felt he was a victim.
These are allegations. The judge will decide what grounds these allegations have appropriately. It's not likely the sex worker has any grounds and will be tossed out. I presume it's just to beef up the lawsuit.
"Throw everything at the wall and see what sticks", if you will.
"It is a weird thing to get my head around, being part of such a culturally iconic image. But it’s always been a positive thing and opened doors for me. I’m 23 now and an artist, and this story gave me an opportunity to work with Shepard Fairey for five years, which was an awesome experience."
"It helps with girls, too"
"I might have one of the most famous penises in the music industry, but no one would ever know that to look at me. Sooner or later, I want to create a print of a real-deal re-enactment shot, completely naked. Why not? I think it would be fun."
Sometimes people land on hard times so they make ill advised decisions. Lets be honest here, nobody is going to look at the adult and say hey I remember you- you're the naked baby on the nirvana album. He is the one who did that, by recreating the photo multiple times and doing interviews.
If we want to talk about gross album covers, I seem to remember a Scorpions album from the 70s that I don't ever care to see again or even look up...
There's a version of the Martin Denny Romantica album cover where he's snuggling a woman with her bare breast exposed. Not gross but, very odd. The 60's were a strange time, man.
In 1991, the year "Nevermind" was released, the band Nirvana was not yet nationally known, and nowhere close in popularity to the internationally known super-legendary band they are viewed as now. Who knows if Nirvana would have even reached such levels of fame if Kurt Cobain were still alive today?
Nirvana, before the release of "Nevermind", their first major label release ever, was just a local garage band from Aberdeen, WA (not even from Seattle). Nobody cared about them except some high school kids from Washington state who had seen them live. There was no internet, smart phones, or social media shaping our values and popular culture. People still listened to the radio and bought cassette tapes and CDs at local record stores. The majority of the social standards we are discussing here and now likely didn't even exist as widely shared common values in 1991, over 30 years ago.
Dude wasn't the "Nirvana baby" - he was just the neighbor/ baby of friend of the family who happened to be there at the time. If they didn't use him, any other baby would have been fine. The idea of the photo/ album cover design would have been made into reality either way with or without him as the specific baby.
If this guy had a brain, he would be trying to get the rights to his image and instead create an NFT of the cover and sell it for millions. Instead I hope he gets nothing
Another unpopular opinion here but cash grab or not the facts are clear - he was a baby, he didn’t consent to the photo, and a lot of people made a lot of money from it.
The only internally consistent solution I can see is that children below age of consent should not be allowed to contribute to commercial art in any form. That’d mean no more child actors, and that would sound heretical to many, but I see no other solutio.
We all process things differently, but making a joke of something that hurts is a VERY common way of dealing.
Idk if his claims of trauma are real or not, but I'll tell you what - that image was worth more than the ~$200 his parents got for it and on those grounds alone I'd award him a few hundred thousand.
IANAL of course, but if they had no authorization to use the photo, that sounds like a plausible claim. The CP charges do not sound plausible.
But that is how our legal system works - you don't ask for what you really believe is fair, you throw everything at the wall to see what sticks. I suspect that the CP claim is just for negotiation, to get a settlement on the more reasonable claim.
It's becomming also an european thing. Stupidity is contagious. I wonder how people will react to frescos of naked children depicted on european buildings.
Actually, they (The Scorpions) got a LOT of flak over that album cover and issued a groveling apology over it years later. It's not used as the album art for that album any more either.
The fact that he re-created the image on his own several times as a teenager and as an adult, along with his expression of seeing it all as a benefit: "It's always been a positive thing and opened doors for me... when he heard I was the Nirvana baby, he thought that was really cool." should get the suit properly tossed out. I say "should"...
[+] [-] EMM_386|4 years ago|reply
Note this same guy re-created the album cover only 5 years ago. He didn't seem to have much of a problem at that time.
https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-37478523
[+] [-] dbingham|4 years ago|reply
Quotes from that interview:
Q: "What's it like knowing all these people have seen you naked?"
A: "What's it like knowing all these people have seen my baby penis? When I was a baby? Well, I'm not really a baby anymore, so I have to think it's not me or something. But it's a trip that a lot of people have seen my baby penis, as a baby. I went to a baseball game at the Dodgers, and I had a moment where I was looking out and thinking 'All these people have seen my baby penis, when I was a baby'. It's pretty... pretty crazy. It'd be nice to have a quarter for all the people who have seen my baby penis. But, you know, there's all kinds of puns you could throw on that. But... you know... maybe it doesn't matter though, it's cool to be a part of that recipe for success. Makes you think you could do it again. That might not happy, but it's a pretty big thing, to be a part of, low key, but it definitely trips you out. But then I try not to think about it, because it's not that big of a deal, there's a lot of things going on that are more important."
I mean, it goes on, but to me that reads as someone struggling to come to terms with something that happened to them when they couldn't consent. Most people would not be okay with having their naked image broadcast to the world before they could consent. And then add in the idea that others made a ton of money off content that used their naked image, and they saw almost none of that... it's understandable.
[+] [-] ta1234567890|4 years ago|reply
> It's not the first time Spencer has been asked to recreate the image - he has posed three times before for the album's 10th, 17th and 20th anniversaries.
> "I said to the photographer, 'Let's do it naked.' But he thought that would be weird, so I wore my swim shorts," Spencer told the New York Post.
[+] [-] gfo|4 years ago|reply
And then... this article. Smells like a money grab to me as well.
[+] [-] ksaj|4 years ago|reply
That's exactly what the picture is of - the allure of capitalism hooking you right from the start.
[+] [-] dancemethis|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] vmception|4 years ago|reply
If his parents didn’t sign a release then there is a claim. It doesn't matter if the subject felt good about it for some time. Actually, in your mind, how is that related? Its hard for me to relate so can you elaborate?
The additional claim of it being child pornography is not strong and is to get them to settle faster. Although he says there was an agreement about covering the genitals that seems broken, if there is no document that will be the only tricky part about the case (just in general contractual stipulations), but does also bolster the settlement claim.
[+] [-] hereforphone|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] spoonjim|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fastball|4 years ago|reply
> Elden alleges his "true identity and legal name are forever tied to the commercial sexual exploitation he experienced as a minor which has been distributed and sold worldwide from the time he was a baby to the present day".
Absolutely had no idea what the legal name of the naked baby on the cover of Nevermind was. But now I do!
[+] [-] tromp|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] boopboopbadoop|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] giuliomagnifico|4 years ago|reply
This (the dollar as a sex worker) seems to a difficult position to hold. We’ll see what will happen in court.
Edit: I’ve always thought the dollar was here to say “everyone want to be rich, also newborns”, or something similar, never thought the newborn as a sex worker.
[+] [-] estomagordo|4 years ago|reply
probably because that's a completely ridiculous connection that nobody makes
[+] [-] NoSorryCannot|4 years ago|reply
Such a thing would still most probably be intended as a critical observation about the sorts of people that innocent babies become, rather than a literal depiction of a baby prostitute.
It's wow ridiculous.
[+] [-] bitwize|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] WesolyKubeczek|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cblconfederate|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Borrible|4 years ago|reply
So apparently he still can't keep his head above water on his own.
Well my sympathy goes more to guys like Aqualung and its painter anyway:
https://theoutline.com/post/4490/jethro-tull-aqualung-cover-...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17052400
If I were Spencer Elden, I wouldn't hold my breath on that one.
Nevermind.
[+] [-] Ceiling|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] toyg|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] maverwa|4 years ago|reply
So yeah, I guess that guy should get some of the Nirvana money. But cut the sex worker crap.
[+] [-] fastball|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sandworm101|4 years ago|reply
Harry Potter, but Harry is 18yo on his first day at Hogwarts. Every family sitcom disappears. And what about work entirely created by kids? I guess highschool drama clubs are out too. This gets very strange very quickly.
[+] [-] rualca|4 years ago|reply
The article mentions that the plaintiff's parents were paid $200 by a photographer who was a friend of the family to have a photoshoot,and go as far as claiming that they were unaware of the whole pro photoshoot they held at the pool and were paid $200 to join was a photoshoot.
They also state that the record company even gave the plaintiff's family a commemorative record and a teddy bear a couple of months after the album release.
From this newspiece alone, and ignoring the fact that the plaintiff is known for having been milking his role in Nirvana's album cover since ever, it's hard to believe that a) the plaintiff and his whole family were not fully aware they willingly participated in a commercial photoshoot for which they were paid for, b) the plaintiff had an epiphany and change of heart regarding the event and suddenly felt he was a victim.
[+] [-] moistoreos|4 years ago|reply
"Throw everything at the wall and see what sticks", if you will.
[+] [-] stef25|4 years ago|reply
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2015/jan/16/thats-m...
"It is a weird thing to get my head around, being part of such a culturally iconic image. But it’s always been a positive thing and opened doors for me. I’m 23 now and an artist, and this story gave me an opportunity to work with Shepard Fairey for five years, which was an awesome experience."
"It helps with girls, too"
"I might have one of the most famous penises in the music industry, but no one would ever know that to look at me. Sooner or later, I want to create a print of a real-deal re-enactment shot, completely naked. Why not? I think it would be fun."
[+] [-] S_A_P|4 years ago|reply
If we want to talk about gross album covers, I seem to remember a Scorpions album from the 70s that I don't ever care to see again or even look up...
[+] [-] Zelphyr|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thanatos519|4 years ago|reply
https://www.adforum.com/creative-work/ad/player/23267/baby/l...
[+] [-] Loeffelmaenn|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bodge5000|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nilawafer|4 years ago|reply
Nirvana, before the release of "Nevermind", their first major label release ever, was just a local garage band from Aberdeen, WA (not even from Seattle). Nobody cared about them except some high school kids from Washington state who had seen them live. There was no internet, smart phones, or social media shaping our values and popular culture. People still listened to the radio and bought cassette tapes and CDs at local record stores. The majority of the social standards we are discussing here and now likely didn't even exist as widely shared common values in 1991, over 30 years ago.
Dude wasn't the "Nirvana baby" - he was just the neighbor/ baby of friend of the family who happened to be there at the time. If they didn't use him, any other baby would have been fine. The idea of the photo/ album cover design would have been made into reality either way with or without him as the specific baby.
[+] [-] bdavid21wnec|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ramraj07|4 years ago|reply
The only internally consistent solution I can see is that children below age of consent should not be allowed to contribute to commercial art in any form. That’d mean no more child actors, and that would sound heretical to many, but I see no other solutio.
[+] [-] Bellamy|4 years ago|reply
I have never seen such a clear cash in attempt. I hope the judge laugh's this guy out of the court room if it goes that far.
[+] [-] luckyandroid|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] smhenderson|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kennywinker|4 years ago|reply
Idk if his claims of trauma are real or not, but I'll tell you what - that image was worth more than the ~$200 his parents got for it and on those grounds alone I'd award him a few hundred thousand.
[+] [-] bastardoperator|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] codingdave|4 years ago|reply
But that is how our legal system works - you don't ask for what you really believe is fair, you throw everything at the wall to see what sticks. I suspect that the CP claim is just for negotiation, to get a settlement on the more reasonable claim.
[+] [-] croes|4 years ago|reply
Must be an american thing, nudity =sex
[+] [-] hulitu|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rory|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] commandlinefan|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] drcode|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bgeeek|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lmilcin|4 years ago|reply
But erlier:
> Elden says his parents never signed a release authorising the use of his image on the album.
Umm... get your story straight?
[+] [-] balls187|4 years ago|reply
If the agreement was verbal, there would not be a signed release.
[+] [-] eplanit|4 years ago|reply