Naked baby from Nirvana album cover sues the band for sexual exploitation

[COOOK 76,406]

 

[Celloo Deng 55,126]

I always found this album cover weird. That poor guy 

[OhHenny2020 2,822]

“…life long damages”

It’s a naked baby for crying out loud

[Guest]

The album cover has always been extremely odd to me since the first day I saw it. But why is he just suing them now?

[Guest]

17 minutes ago, OhHenny2020 said:

“…life long damages”

It’s a naked baby for crying out loud

I mean, tbh, I could see as to how that could effect him in his future. I wouldn’t wanna be known as the naked baby on an album cover all my life, personally. I can bet he’s probably gotten teased for it over the years.

ETA: I retract this statement since he’s clearly embraced it over the years until now.

[tylertremallose 1,382]

seems like a cash grab.
he sure loved re-creating the photos

[tomsches 17,435]

Someone needs money

[tylertremallose 1,382]

seems like he got butt hurt and now he wants to sue lol

 

[badfaith 5,715]

How did they get the picture if the legal guardians didn't consent to it?

[Guest]

Here’s some more info of the development of the artwork, from the albums Wikipedia page;

”The album cover shows a naked baby boy, Spencer Elden, swimming underwater with a U.S. dollar bill on a fishhook, in front of him, just out of his reach. According to Cobain, he conceived the idea while watching a television program on water births with Grohl. Cobain mentioned it to Geffen's art director Robert Fisher. Fisher found some stock footage of underwater births, but they were too graphic for the record company to use. Furthermore, the stock housethat controlled the photo of a swimming baby that they chose wanted $7,500 a year for its use. Instead, Fisher sent a photographer, Kirk Weddle, to a pool for babies to take pictures. Five shots resulted and the band settled on the image of four-month-old Spencer Elden, the son of a friend of Weddle. Geffen were concerned that the infant's penis, visible in the photo, would cause offense, and prepared an alternate cover without it; they relented when Cobain said the only compromise he would accept would be a sticker covering the penis reading: "If you're offended by this, you must be a closet pedophile."The cover has since been recognized as one of the most famous album covers in popular music.” A few months after the original baby shot, Kirk Weddle also photographed the entire band underwater for a promotional poster.”

[Guest]

Alright, after doing some research, I think this part is a little sus to be suing;

“For the album's 10th, 17th and 25th anniversaries, Elden recreated the front cover shot for photographers. He wanted to do the 25th anniversary shoot nude but the photographer preferred that he wore swim shorts. In 2003 he appeared on the cover of cEvin Key's album The Dragon Experience.”

[Mother of Puppies 36,460]

Shouldn’t the parents be sued? (Or the person who gave consent to use the picture for commercial purposes)?

[Celloo Deng 55,126]

Just now, Munchlax said:

Alright, after doing some research, I think this part is a little sus to be suing;

For the album's 10th, 17th and 25th anniversaries, Elden recreated the front cover shot for photographers. He wanted to do the 25th anniversary shoot nude but the photographer preferred that he wore swim shorts. In 2003 he appeared on the cover of cEvin Key's album The Dragon Experience.

Hmmm fair play this is a bit sus 

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Cello said:

Hmmm fair play this is a bit sus 

Seems like a cash grab to me now after digging a little bit. It makes no sense for him to wait this many years to say something about it. But the real kicker is how he recreated the album cover over the years AND he, in his own words, apparently wanted to do the 25th anniversary cover naked but the photographers said no.

The judge will throw this case out, 100%.

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, MotherOfPuppies said:

Shouldn’t the parents be sued? (Or the person who gave consent to use the picture for commercial purposes)?

Tbh, with all that I commented on in this thread so far; I personally probably would sue my parents for that. I mean, *technically* it can be considered child ****ography. It’s one thing for a baby being naked, that’s natural, of course. It’s a whole another thing if that baby is being photographed naked purposely.