(Topic ID: 299253)

Nirvana sued by the baby from Nevermind's album cover

By Atari_Daze

64 days ago


Topic Heartbeat

Topic Stats

  • 18 posts
  • 11 Pinsiders participating
  • Latest reply 55 days ago by Thermionic
  • No one calls this topic a favorite

You

Topic Gallery

View topic image gallery

ufgvuyfgyguhiohipj (resized).jpg
pasted_image (resized).png

#1 64 days ago

Ok, who else is surprised it took this long for this law suit?

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-58327844

#2 64 days ago

This is the time to do a lawsuit. No more waiting!

Bill Cosby
That Weinstein guy
That New York governor guy
Bob Dylan, allegation from 1965!

I could probably google some more.. lets add this Nirvana one to the list! Its never too late.

#3 64 days ago

I have that image on the apron on my CFTBL

11
#4 64 days ago

All they need to do is parade all the babes that this guy has used the line "I'm the Nirvana baby!!!" on over the past 15 years into the courtroom. Speedy dismissal!

#5 64 days ago
Quoted from CrazyLevi:

All they need to do is parade all the babes that this guy has used the line "I'm the Nirvana baby!!!" on over the past 15 years into the courtroom. Speedy dismissal!

Yeah, he’s recreated the picture for every album anniversary... dismissed for sure. He’s hoping he gets a pity settlement for this meritless lawsuit.

#6 64 days ago
Quoted from Isochronic_Frost:

He’s hoping he gets a pity settlement for this meritless lawsuit.

Hopefully that $1.00 he has been swimming for over the past 30 years! He's earned it by now.

#7 63 days ago

This guy is a idiot. He admits it was a positive thing for him and then wants to sue. If he wants to sue someone he should sue his parents. I am sure his parents singed all the proper legal documents.

"It's always been a positive thing and opened doors for me," he told the Guardian six years ago. "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. He is a huge music connoisseur: when he heard I was the Nirvana baby, he thought that was really cool."

#8 63 days ago
Quoted from woody76:

This guys is a idiot. He admits it was a positive thing for him and then wants to sue. If he wants to sue someone he should sue his parents. I am sure his parents singed all the proper legal documents.
"It's always been a positive thing and opened doors for me," he told the Guardian six years ago. "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. He is a huge music connoisseur: when he heard I was the Nirvana baby, he thought that was really cool."

He's also got NEVERMIND tattooed in huge letters on his chest.

Will make for a dramatic courtroom reveal!

10
#9 63 days ago
pasted_image (resized).png
1 week later
#10 55 days ago
ufgvuyfgyguhiohipj (resized).jpg
#11 55 days ago

While this specific lawsuit is probably ridiculous (for all the aforementioned reasons), it does serve as possible evidence that society has changed for the better with regard to the exploitation of children. Images like these now tend to be seen as exploitative rather than some cutesy artistic expression of irony or whatever, and are less acceptable to the wider culture than they were then.

The issue with this is quite simply that the baby had no ability to provide informed consent for the image, nor did he have the ability to revoke the consent provided by his parents. The fact that his parents may have signed-off is irrelevant, as they most likely had dollar signs in their eyes which clouded their judgement; they, of all people, should have possessed sufficient insight to realize that the baby may grow up and experience a severe negative reaction upon seeing the pics, rather than embracing it as "art" or whatever factors THEY projected to justify giving the OK.

Bottom line is, baby had absolutely no control over being exposed in this manner, and when this realization occurs to him as an adult the result can absolutely be severely distressing (perceived lack of control is a very big deal to people coping with traumatic events). It is irrelevant that he once embraced the image and may have even exploited it to get laid; the fact is, people grow and evolve throughout their lives and what was once acceptable may morph into something that is perceived as embarrassing or traumatic, and given that he was provided no choice in the matter it's understandable that he would seek a remedy.

#12 55 days ago

Hell, I would sue my parents if my images were smeared all over Facebook. After all, I'm in the witness relocation program!

#13 55 days ago

I had a client tell me recently that she wanted photos printed (from an SD card) of her infant daughter. The store manager had to be called over to the kiosk and proceeded to read her the riot act over "indecent photos' and that the store would have NO part of that! She was made out to practically be a ped and left the store in shame. THIS is the kind of stuff that has gone WAY too far. Jesus, how many of us here have the proverbial "bearskin rug" pics of us when we were infants?!?

#14 55 days ago
Quoted from Thermionic:

While this specific lawsuit is probably ridiculous (for all the aforementioned reasons), it does serve as possible evidence that society has changed for the better with regard to the exploitation of children. Images like these now tend to be seen as exploitative rather than some cutesy artistic expression of irony or whatever, and are less acceptable to the wider culture than they were then.
The issue with this is quite simply that the baby had no ability to provide informed consent for the image, nor did he have the ability to revoke the consent provided by his parents. The fact that his parents may have signed-off is irrelevant, as they most likely had dollar signs in their eyes which clouded their judgement; they, of all people, should have possessed sufficient insight to realize that the baby may grow up and experience a severe negative reaction upon seeing the pics, rather than embracing it as "art" or whatever factors THEY projected to justify giving the OK.
Bottom line is, baby had absolutely no control over being exposed in this manner, and when this realization occurs to him as an adult the result can absolutely be severely distressing (perceived lack of control is a very big deal to people coping with traumatic events). It is irrelevant that he once embraced the image and may have even exploited it to get laid; the fact is, people grow and evolve throughout their lives and what was once acceptable may morph into something that is perceived as embarrassing or traumatic, and given that he was provided no choice in the matter it's understandable that he would seek a remedy.

Wouldn’t this be the case for any child actor or model regardless of nudity.

Your parents can basically sign away your rights until you are 18, so that’s who he should be suing for a remedy.

#15 55 days ago
Quoted from Black_Knight:

Wouldn’t this be the case for any child actor or model regardless of nudity.
Your parents can basically sign away your rights until you are 18, so that’s who he should be suing for a remedy.

I am not a lawyer, so I am not 100% sure. But yes, objectively, his real beef (and the appropriate target for litigation) is with his parents, who prioritized the almighty dollar and/or fame higher than their infant's well-being.

And yes, parents can legally sign-off on this stuff, even if by objective criteria it is decidedly to the detriment of the child. This is the point I was trying to convey, namely, that what's "right" under the law isn't necessarily in the best interests of all the parties involved, and unfortunately the party in the weaker position (who needs the protection afforded by such laws) is often the one that suffers.

#16 55 days ago
Quoted from Thermionic:

While this specific lawsuit is probably ridiculous (for all the aforementioned reasons), it does serve as possible evidence that society has changed for the better with regard to the exploitation of children. Images like these now tend to be seen as exploitative rather than some cutesy artistic expression of irony or whatever, and are less acceptable to the wider culture than they were then.
The issue with this is quite simply that the baby had no ability to provide informed consent for the image, nor did he have the ability to revoke the consent provided by his parents. The fact that his parents may have signed-off is irrelevant, as they most likely had dollar signs in their eyes which clouded their judgement; they, of all people, should have possessed sufficient insight to realize that the baby may grow up and experience a severe negative reaction upon seeing the pics, rather than embracing it as "art" or whatever factors THEY projected to justify giving the OK.
Bottom line is, baby had absolutely no control over being exposed in this manner, and when this realization occurs to him as an adult the result can absolutely be severely distressing (perceived lack of control is a very big deal to people coping with traumatic events). It is irrelevant that he once embraced the image and may have even exploited it to get laid; the fact is, people grow and evolve throughout their lives and what was once acceptable may morph into something that is perceived as embarrassing or traumatic, and given that he was provided no choice in the matter it's understandable that he would seek a remedy.

Are you kidding? What a load of shit. It's not "understandable that he would seek a remedy". The dude is a greedy bastard, plain and simple.

#17 55 days ago

Nobody would know who the hell he is if hadn't been blabbing about it to anybody who would listen for the last 25 years.

Seriously...if you gave me baby pictures of my friends I'd probably have a pretty tough time picking any of them out of a lineup.

That being said; whatever. There's plenty of money to go around with these people, let the baby have his bottle and toss him a jar of Gerber or two and call it a day.

Fun Fact: The guy who designed the Rolling Stones' famous tongue and lips design got paid a $200 flat fee in 1971.

History is littered with people who have been cast aside as those they were associated with in one way or another rocketed to fame and fortune. It's the "tough titty" doctrine in action.

#18 55 days ago
Quoted from jake35:

Are you kidding? What a load of shit. It's not "understandable that he would seek a remedy". The dude is a greedy bastard, plain and simple.

In fact, if you had read more carefully you would have seen in the very first phrase of the first sentence of the post that I conceded it was "ridiculous" ("load of shit", if you like) due to the "aforementioned reasons" (the main one of course being greed).

I am merely pointing out the fact that societal attitudes regarding this stuff have indeed changed significantly in the past 30 years, and that does give people like this individual some actual power to retaliate via the legal system (even though we all know through "common sense" that he's full of shit). The legal system and "powers that be" have become very sympathetic (sometimes to a fault) to, and will err on the side of ruling in favor of, anyone who can claim to be a "victim" on some level, especially if they were a child or a member of some other protected class. Throw in all the pressure due to publicity, and he almost can't lose!

It doesn't matter that he may have once reveled in the photo and even used it to his advantage; in the current climate all he needs to do to garner sufficient sympathy to extort a settlement (the REAL objective - I doubt any of the parties actually want a trial) is to make the claims I articulated in the last paragraph of the post.

Hey there! Got a moment?

Great to see you're enjoying Pinside! Did you know Pinside is able to run thanks to donations from our visitors? Please donate to Pinside, support the site and get anext to your username to show for it! Donate to Pinside