Current Events > Baby (now adult man) on Nirvana cover suing Nirvana and Cobain estate

(+) Yeah! (+)

I dont think this will go anywhere i see the lawsuit being dismissed

---

Kloe_Rinz posted...

Not sure if exploitative is the right word, but they definitely didnt consent and i dont think the parents should have the right to consent on behalf of the child

at that age it is the parents right to give consent. A baby obviously cannot give consent.

---

The morality of the cover could be questionable and argued, but this is a cash grab on a pretty flimsy basis. There was another article with more details, this TMZ one is pretty lame.

Basically, it's not illegal to show an infant naked if it's non-sexual, but their lawyer is arguing that the dollar bill in the context of the photo makes it "sex work", while it's obviously more of a symbolic/satirically statement. I've also read that the parents were paid and consented and that Nirvana would cover the penis if that's what was decided on. I think it's also kind of hard to argue that this damaged him for 30 years if he's recreating the photo for publicity.

It sucks that he doesn't get royalties and the parents were paid a pretty small sum, but this is also when Nirvana was a no-name band before blowing up overnight with Smells Like Teen Spirit.

He is asking for 150k from each of the defendants. How much is that in all? I read somewhere that there are 17 defendants in total but idk where that figure is from. So $2.55m if true

Does the photographer even have $150k to spare?

---

Ratchetrockon posted...

Found this hehe

Ha!

---

I feel like his issue should be with his parents, unless his claim that they didn't consent to it is valid. And that seems pretty unlikely unless they, like, kidnapped him for the shoot without his parents knowing. But more likely his parents agreed to have their baby model for the photo and they were paid for it.

Models don't get like royalties for their shoots unless that is part of their contract. He's not really owed anything after his parents were initially paid.

I mean there is certainly a broader discussion to be had about the ethics of using individuals incapable of consent for monetary gain or the use of child nudity. But I find it highly unlikely that Nirvana, the studio, or the photographer actually did any thing illegal.

---

Ratchetrockon posted...

He is asking for 150k from each of the defendants. How much is that in all? I read somewhere that there are 17 defendants in total but idk where that figure is from. So $2.55m if true

Does the photographer even have $150k to spare?

Even Courtney is included for some reason, lol

---

lilORANG posted...

"Kurt, Dave Grohl, and the rest of the band"

Lmao

Poor Krist lol

---

Infinite 2003 posted...

Poor Krist lol

Isn't he a trumper or something? I feel like something came up with him last year that got him in some hot water

---

Nirvana always has been a shitty overplayed band.

Hope this guy wins every penny hes asking for.

---

eston posted...

Even Courtney is included for some reason, lol

He is trying to sue Chad Channing too (drummer from bleach). Lol!

---

Ill be honest, even as a kid I thought it was a weird cover. I get the artsy fartsy aspect of it all, but I remember being 8 yrs old back in 94, seeing that cover for the first time and thinking imagine how pissed that kid is gonna be when he grows up.

---

Man that guy is whack. He used to give interviews about being the Nirvana cover baby.

This case is dead in the water

---

Cocytus posted...

Man that guy is whack. He used to give interviews about being the Nirvana cover baby.

Then that money dried up, and now he thirsty.

---

no offense, but who the **** would agree to let this cover be released

---

JBaLLEN66 posted...

no offense, but who the **** would agree to let this cover be released

different times. no way it could be done now.

---

Bass_X0 posted...

different times. no way it could be done now.

different times my ass, could've edited the cover over time or at least something

---

Adult man baby sues people!

Do I think he's actually traumatized? No lmao.

Do I think he deserves some compensation? Absolutely.

If my baby pictures were all over an album cover of a famous rockband, you bet I would want to get some money out of it. Who actually got the money? Probably his parents.

---

Do I think he deserves some compensation? Absolutely.

He has already been paid for it.

---

so he was cool with it all this time even going as far as recreating it as an adult. now all of a sudden he's got a problem with it?

yeah, sounds like bullshit to me...

Bass_X0 posted...

He has already been paid for it.

I doubt he got paid what it's worth

Zikten posted...

I doubt he got paid what it's worth

No, but he was paid what his parent's agreed to,

You can't agree to being paid a certain amount, receive that amount then demand more later.


---

what a...

dick

---

Bass_X0 posted...

No, but he was paid what his parent's agreed to,

You can't agree to being paid a certain amount, receive that amount then demand more later.

As The Witcher man will tell you

---

Were his parents dope fiends when they agreed to $250? lol

---

LeoRavus posted...

Were his parents dope fiends when they agreed to $250? lol

Witcher guy sold the rights for 10k

TEN. K.

Then got mad when CDPR made millions

People are dumb af and always go for quick cash if they're fiending something

---

Venger2112 posted...

Witcher guy sold the rights for 10k

TEN. K.

Then got mad when CDPR made millions

People are dumb af and always go for quick cash if they're fiending something

Hopefully he made way more than that from the books. That's still a terrible price for the premise of a game franchise.

---

I think i had heard that he was doing some art exhibit or promotion, and he asked Nirvana to attend, to help with promotion or something like that.

Well, they didn't show up, and he got pissed off...and decided to sue them over this dumb shit lol (i could be wrong, just what i had heard second hand).

Too lazy to look that up, but my brother mentioned something along those lines i think. Someone should do some digging and see if that is the case.

Anyways, he says he didn't consent to the picture? How the fuck did they get the picture? Obviously they didn't just pull it from the internet lol, it was before all that, so an actual photographer (who is actually named in the suit i think?) had to take the picture, which means the guys caretakers/guardians/parents at the time were likely there, and one way or another probably did consent to the picture being taken, just not ''legally'' or ''contractually''. The whole ''its CP imagery'' thing is literally grasping at straws. He knows some fucking lunatics on twitter would eat that shit up, so he chose that angle.

The funniest part of all of this, is that he's taken numerous photos over the years (there was a pic collage on reddit of this), in the same pool, doing the same pose--obviously not naked, because his dick is likely the same size as it was in his first picture--so he clearly had no problem with it, or it would've been expressed much sooner, and he wouldn't be riding the nostalgia bandwagon, recreating the picture every few years if it was truly that damaging.

Im inclined to think what my brother mentioned is true, or some variation of that situation is what sparked all this. The dude is famous from being on the cover anyways, so its kind of one of those things where he wouldn't probably have any of the success he's had, or be where he's at in life, had he not been in the picture at all.

---

LeoRavus posted...

Were his parents dope fiends when they agreed to $250? lol

Nirvana was still largely unknown at that point, how could they predict it would become an iconic album?
---

The indy tag team who sold the rights to the name The Undertaker to the WWF only got paid like $500. They had to lose multiple matches on WWF shows just to get paid that.

---

I'm okay with him getting a payout.

---