Poll of the Day > The baby on the Nirvana cover is suing them for CP

(+) Yeah! (+)

MeteoricBurst posted...

the most narcissistic person on this whole board

My ears are burning

No, my ears are really burning! I wanted to see inside so I lit a qtip


---

I agree that its hard to believe hea traumatized when he kept making the cover over and over, tbh
---

Clench281 posted...

My ears are burning

No, my ears are really burning! I wanted to see inside so I lit a qtip

I did think of you too even as I typed that, Clench. The difference is a lot of your topics are quite useful despite your constant preening and self absorption. Nearly everything that comes out of Jen's mouth is utter nonsense.

---

MeteoricBurst posted...

I did think of you too even as I typed that, Clench. The difference is a lot of your topics are quite useful despite your constant preening and self absorption. Nearly everything that comes out of Jen's mouth is utter nonsense.

Lmfao

At least he had the courage to use my name this time

---

FatalAccident posted...

Well apparently all girls dump him when they find out hes the baby on the cover which is just weird lmfao

Really? Shit I knew 3 girls in the 90s personally who would be all over that haha.

---

Collat posted...

That's David Bowie dumb dumb.

I thought it was Pink Floyd *shrug*

---

Jen0125 posted...

Lmfao

At least he had the courage to use my name this time

This is an odd take. Just yesterday I posted in your own topic and mentioned you by name in that. I have criticised you other times by name. I didn't earlier because I didn't feel like it. Muscles mistook Dirt obvious mocking of your foolishness sarcastically, as him being serious. So I corrected him and segwayed into what you said. The fact you then make an issue over me not calling you directly when everyone can see who it is, just proves how truly narcissistic you are. You really need that attention don't you. This is some funny shit.

---

MeteoricBurst posted...

This is an odd take. Just yesterday I posted in your own topic and mentioned you by name in that. I have criticised you other times by name. I didn't earlier because I didn't feel like it. Muscles mistook Dirt obvious mocking of your foolishness sarcastically, as him being serious. So I corrected him and segwayed into what you said. The fact you then make an issue over me not calling you directly when everyone can see who it is, just proves how truly narcissistic you are. You really need that attention don't you. This is some funny shit.

I'm not reading all this. I'm glad you get wound up by my posts and I hope it continues to happen to you.

---

MeteoricBurst posted...

This is an odd take. Just yesterday I posted in your own topic and mentioned you by name in that. I have criticised you other times by name. I didn't earlier because I didn't feel like it. Muscles mistook Dirt obvious mocking of your foolishness sarcastically, as him being serious. So I corrected him and segwayed into what you said. The fact you then make an issue over me not calling you directly when everyone can see who it is, just proves how truly narcissistic you are. You really need that attention don't you. This is some funny shit.

What? I didn't take him seriously, I never take DBS seriously lol

---

Says the one who actually sounds wound up the entire topic. Lol.

---

MeteoricBurst posted...

segwayed

segued*

---

Muscles posted...

What? I didn't take him seriously, I never take DBS seriously lol

My bad. I guess you were mocking the situation too. Regardless it's funny my point about narcissism played out so clearly.

---

I don't think you know what narcissism is lmao

---

Wonder if Weird Al will get sued too

---

Black_Crusher posted...

I thought it was Pink Floyd *shrug*

Go back and watch the Wall. That song ain't in there.

Collat posted...

Go back and watch the Wall. That song ain't in there.

Well, considering Pink Floyd did more than The Wall, that isn't a surprise.

---

Zeus posted...

Can you even sue for CP? That sounds like a criminal thing.

Sure.

First of all, you can sue anyone for anything, particularly in the US. Whether or not the suit will be successful is another matter entirely.

Second, just because it's criminal doesn't preclude you from seeking civil damages; to the contrary, it's relatively common for victims of crimes to seek financial compensation from the perpetrators, assuming they're not so poor as to be judgement-proof.

DiScOrD tHe LuNaTiC posted...

He's also suing Chad Channing, and Chad wasn't even in the band when that photo was taken.

If Channing received financial gain from the album, there would be reason to include him as a party to the suit, regardless of whether or not he was involved in the actual wrongdoing (the logic being that if the album is found to be exploitative or otherwise legally "troublesome", anyone who has profited off it could potentially be pursued for compensation).

GastroFan posted...

The problem is that, if his parents gave Nirvana permission to use that photo, he's going to have a hard time winning his lawsuit. I haven't heard anyone yet mention whether or not his parents consented to letting Nirvana use that photo because, if they did, since he was a minor at the time, he doesn't have a legal leg to stand on.

Not true at all.

If he was suing because he felt he was owed a share of the profits and wasn't properly compensated, then this would be accurate. But that's not what he's alleged in his suit - he's saying the fact this photo was taken and published at all was a violation of his rights due to it being illegal and abusive, and that case would (hypothetically, not considering other specifics of this particular case) hold regardless of whether the parents granted permission for the use of the photo or not.

As an example, if Person A sues Person B because Person B stabbed them when they were a child, Person B could not defend themselves by saying that Person A's parents signed a waiver allowing Person B to stab their child. If a court finds that the cover shot is actually CP, the parents' consent becomes completely immaterial. The claimant here isn't suing for unpaid royalties, he's suing for damages - two different things.

DiScOrD tHe LuNaTiC posted...

You know the lawsuit is bullshit when the lawyer is claiming it's CP because the photo, allegedly chosen by Nirvana's late frontman, Kurt Cobain, suggests a "sex worker grabbing for a dollar bill."

THE DOLLAR ISN'T EVEN IN THE REAL PHOTOGRAPH, YOU STUPID FUCK. It was added during the development process

It wouldn't matter if it was in the "real photo" or not; what matters is what was released to the public.

If I took someone's face from a completely normal picture and edited it onto a porn star's body, then released it as a magazine cover, I would be opening myself up to all sorts of liability issues and no, the statement, "The original photo wasn't pornographic at all before I edited it, so it's fine," would not stand as any sort of defence at all.

---

He has autographed and sold copies of this image on eBay.

If this is found to be CP like he states, then isn't this considered distributing CP?

---

scott3439 posted...

He has autographed and sold copies of this image on eBay.

If this is found to be CP like he states, then isn't this considered distributing CP?

XD I legit hope someone brings this up in court (if it goes that far)

---

scott3439 posted...

He has autographed and sold copies of this image on eBay.

If this is found to be CP like he states, then isn't this considered distributing CP?

It could be, yes.

He would be unlikely to face any repercussions for it, though. Prosecutors have discretion on who they prosecute and why and I can't imagine any of them would think it worthwhile bringing this guy up on charges for it.

---

Nothing unearths deep-buried trauma like suddenly discovering a long-suppressed desire for shitloads of someone else's money, apparently.

---

Criminalt posted...

Nothing unearths deep-buried trauma like suddenly discovering a long-suppressed desire for shitloads of someone else's money, apparently.

yeah, its a really bizarre take in this case. Im not speaking on all trauma, Im speaking on this one dude thats clearly reaching for money.

---

Criminalt posted...

Nothing unearths deep-buried trauma like suddenly discovering a long-suppressed desire for shitloads of someone else's money, apparently.

^

Check out this quote from a GQ interview a while back (I can tinyurl the link in a minute): edit: https://tinyurl.com/zy7n9f5r

In the past youve said it was cool. When did that change?

Just a few months ago, when I was reaching out to Nirvana to see if they wanted to be part of my art show. I was getting referred to their managers and their lawyers. Why am I still on their cover if Im not that big of a deal?

Whyd you reach out to them?

I was trying to do an art show with the photographer who took the picture. I was asking if they wanted to put a piece of art in the fucking thing.

Sounds to me like this dude's ego is out of whack and he thinks the fucking band owes him their time and appreciation lmao, then when they didn't do him a solid for his shitty art show he pitched a tantrum and now it's "waaaah they exploited my baby dick!"

I'm sorry but this guy is not fucking traumatized. He's an ego-tripping litigious leech

---

I don't think naked photos of babies should be mass produced like that. I think I would feel really bad about it if my parents had done that to me. It just feels like a huge violation
. It's not that it's sexualized or anything, just that it's private and the baby can't consent to that.

This guy maybe seems full of shit but I don't think that should really matter for reasoning about the case

---

Apparently the original agreement was for it to be censored but hollywood and pizza restaurants gonna hollywood and sacrifice babies and stuff.

PunishedOni posted...

just that it's private and the baby can't consent to that.

That would open up things to question children in advertising, in television and movies, etc. To paraphrase the Bible: "It's a slippery slope" not disagreeing per se just pointing that out. Perhaps there needs to be legislation (if it doesn't already exist) protecting child performers that creates an avenue for them to seek compensation or protections from their work later in life, should a situation like this arise.

As for its mass production... it's artwork, and it was used as an album cover. But again, it's art. You may be bothered by it, but there are countless people who are not bothered by it, and who wouldn't be bothered in being the baby in that photo. Which is why I have a problem, not with this dude's lawsuit, but in the way he's presenting it and framing his argument.

If he had argued that his parents and therefore he had been underpaid, or that there should have been further compensation given the albums success, then that I could get behind.

But to live your life glorifying the fact that you're the Nevermind baby - going so far as to recreate the photo multiple times, getting a "Nevermind" tattoo, etc - then turn around and claim that it's now offensive to you is straight BS, especially in light of that quote from my previous post. It shows that he clearly thinks he's made a significant contribution to Nirvana's success and is owed some sort of validation or recognition or some shit. It could've been any baby on that album. He's not special. He's a fucking clown.

---

Dude seems to think that without the album cover of Nevermind, Nirvana would have been a flash in the pan that no one cared about.

I think this guy is either a narcissist moron, or he just wants as much money from Nirvana as he can get his hands on. Like others have said mothers/fathers show baby pictures all the time and at least some of them might be nude pictures. It's just how things work, sure this album has been seen by 100's of millions but that doesn't change the fact.

I also have a strong feeling his mother was paid when the picture was going to be used on the album. So we have a case where he really doesn't have shit to stand on.

Far-Queue posted...

Check out this quote from a GQ interview a while back (I can tinyurl the link in a minute): edit: https://tinyurl.com/zy7n9f5r

In the past youve said it was cool. When did that change?

Just a few months ago, when I was reaching out to Nirvana to see if they wanted to be part of my art show. I was getting referred to their managers and their lawyers. Why am I still on their cover if Im not that big of a deal?

Whyd you reach out to them?

I was trying to do an art show with the photographer who took the picture. I was asking if they wanted to put a piece of art in the fucking thing.

Sounds to me like this dude's ego is out of whack and he thinks the fucking band owes him their time and appreciation lmao, then when they didn't do him a solid for his shitty art show he pitched a tantrum and now it's "waaaah they exploited my baby dick!"

I'm sorry but this guy is not fucking traumatized. He's an ego-tripping litigious leech

So, hes just being salty?
---

LinkPizza posted...

So, hes just being salty?

Thats what I take from that excerpt. Fair enough you recently discovered the trauma of it, thats one thing - but this just smells of taking a hit to your ego then suing them cos youre salty

---

Far-Queue posted...

brb gonna friend your mom so I can laugh at your baby dick

DirtBasedSoap posted...

noooooo youre gonna see my tiny wiener

Far-Queue posted...

Won't be the last time

Lmao

---

Do I think he's actually tramatuized? 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.

---

Far-Queue posted...

That would open up things to question children in advertising, in television and movies, etc. To paraphrase the Bible: "It's a slippery slope" not disagreeing per se just pointing that out.

I don't think kids should be naked in TV or movies either.


---

I mean, regardless of what his actual feelings are, this was obviously done without his consent. Was he ever fairly compensated for appearing on the cover?

---

I mean they paid out his parents. I forget if that was their breakout album or where exactly they were in terms of their popularity but they couldn't have really known for certain that they'd have the kind of legacy they do today even at the height of it all. It reminds me of the Nike swoosh design. The designer was compensated for it and they didn't really have to give a fuck after but they did end up doing a little extra for her which was cool considering what eventually became of it.

Mead posted...

I mean, regardless of what his actual feelings are, this was obviously done without his consent. Was he ever fairly compensated for appearing on the cover?

Since he was a baby, they probably paid the parents
---

LinkPizza posted...

Since he was a baby, they probably paid the parents

that might be legal, but I dont think its right

---

Mead posted...

that might be legal, but I dont think its right

Right and legal arent always the same thing. That said, it is possible they use most of it on him. We just probably wont have any idea if thats true. If the parents were paid, I think the only people he could sue would be them, right? Though, thats probably not legal, either. Nor would it probably work, tbh
---

He's just pissed they only paid him a dollar.

---

LinkPizza posted...

I think the only people he could sue would be them, right?

no you can sue anyone, for anything

---

Mead posted...

no you can sue anyone, for anything

I know that. I guess I meant the only chance hes have at getting money would be from them if they got paid for it
---

Hes also accusing them of child pornography? This has JUST recently started bothering him? What exactly is pornographic about this? His lawyer said its because the dollar bill makes him look like a sex worker.WOW thats a stretch.

Plus I havent really ever listened to Nirvana but surely there is some meaning to that cover, right?

---