7 ms·

This seems to be a cash grab. 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://

This seems to be a cash grab. 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 https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-37478523

hereforphone 5y ago
Did he not have the balls(!) to do it naked as in the original?
- detaro 5y ago
  that's addressed in the article.
- IgorPartola 5y ago
  Sorry not sorry, that’s a really dumb question to ask.
spoonjim 5y ago
The motivations don’t matter. It was wrong for Nirvana to do and a big award will make others less likely to do this in the future.
- rockbruno 5y ago
  You can't say the motivation doesn't matter when the person is clearly ill-intended. He claims he "has suffered and will continue to suffer lifelong damages". Nobody knew who this person was before he started complaining about it, how could he "suffer damage" from it? There's no case here and any defense lawyer would have a field day with this.
  - spoonjim 5y ago
    My reason for not caring about his motivations is that a big reason for torts to exist is to discourage bad behavior from others. If you look at the actions of a major American corporation a huge fraction of them are “so we don’t get sued.” The next time a record label thinks about using an exploitative image of a baby for their advertising, I want them to think “oof, remember when we did that and had to pay out $100 million?” Not “oh yeah, remember that was one of the iconic album covers of all time.” Elden himself hardly matters to this... a judge ordering the label to set $100 million on fire (or make a non-deductible charitable donation) would have the same effect.
    - sokoloff 5y ago
      The record label secured the rights to use the photo from people legally able to grant those rights. I don’t see a legal quandary at all and, unless you think all minors’ likenesses should not be able to appear in commercial material, I don’t see a moral or ethical quandary. Plaintiff’s destination for their complaint is with their parents, IMO. Same as if adult Mikey objected to being associated with Life cereal or adult Macauley Culkin objected to being in Home Alone. Edit to add: > Elden says his parents never signed a release authorising the use of his image on the album. Iff that claim is true (which should be a relatively straightforward finding of fact) and that fact means that the label didn’t have the rights to use the likeness [the claim doesn’t rely on a technicality of the word “release”, but where the label has a license to use], then I’d say he’s got a case.
      - spoonjim 5y ago
        I see this photo as somewhere in the uncomfortable gray area between Macauley Culkin and child pornography. That's why I don't believe the same rules should apply.
        burnished 5y ago
        What? In what way is this possibly pornographic? It is really uncomfortable to me that you're just going to casually throw that out there as an axis for this to be measured on.
        spoonjim 5y ago
        It is a naked picture of a baby clearly used to provoke and advertise. I'm OK with naked baby photos being taken and kept by parents but I don't think it's OK to use a child's naked photo as one of the iconic commercial photos of a generation. I do not think it is child pornography but I think that it is a misuse of a baby's naked photo in a way that a parent should not be able to consent to on behalf of the child.
        5y ago
  - preinheimer 5y ago
    I absolutely think it's possible to suffer as the result of a photo, even if it's not clear you're the subject.
  - DSMan195276 5y ago
    > Nobody knew who this person was before he started complaining about it, how could he "suffer damage" from it? Ehh, that seems like pretty shaky logic. I think it's pretty safe to say that lots of people would be bothered by naked pictures of themselves being posted publicly for all to see, even if they can't be identified by the pictures. That's not to say he's going to win, but I think you're simplifying things a bit too much.
    - rockbruno 5y ago
      Sure, but you ignored the part where he's ill-intended. This is obviously not bothering him given that he willingly recreated the picture in the past to milk money out of it.
      - DSMan195276 5y ago
        How is the part I quoted related to whether he's ill-intended or not? Weren't you saying that before anybody knew it was him it was impossible for him to "suffer damage" from it? That's the part I disagree with.
  - vmception 5y ago
    It doesnt matter. You can be exuberantly happy about a photo and still have power over it if that power was not signed away. The power in this case is damages which can be collected due to the ongoing commercial use.
dbingham 5y ago
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.
- namdnay 5y ago
  So I kind of agree, except: 1) nobody would ever have known it was him if he hadn't been trying to milk it for celebrity 2) He's aiming at the record label because they've got the big bucks, but it's his parents who sold him out when they accepted 200$ for a photoshoot
  - dbingham 5y ago
    1) People don't have to know its him for it to kind of fuck him up. Honestly, I dunno know if it would mess me up or not to be in his position, but I could definitely imagine it messing some folks up to know that basically everyone had seen you naked and you had no ability to consent. Also, the way I read the articles, I don't believe he reached out for those recreations - the media reached out to him. 2) The record label are the ones who ultimately profited off the image. Edit: Also, it's not like it was hidden that it was him on the album cover. Anyone who wanted to know who the baby was could easily find out it was him. It's in the wikipedia, and I imagine it was probably credited in the Album credits: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevermind#Artwork https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevermind#Artwork That's probably how the media tracked him down for recreations.
gfo 5y ago
Yikes. Despite loving this album, I really thought there might be merit to this lawsuit. And then... this article. Smells like a money grab to me as well.
- dehrmann 5y ago
  > Smells like a money grab I see what you did, there.
dancemethis 5y ago
Well, must still be humiliating to be part of the thing that downright killed music.
ta1234567890 5y ago
And: > 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.
vmception 5y ago
You really think thats a factor huh. 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.
ksaj 5y ago
"This seems to be a cash grab." That's exactly what the picture is of - the allure of capitalism hooking you right from the start.

hereforphone 5y ago

Did he not have the balls(!) to do it naked as in the original?

detaro 5y ago
that's addressed in the article.
IgorPartola 5y ago
Sorry not sorry, that’s a really dumb question to ask.

spoonjim 5y ago

The motivations don’t matter. It was wrong for Nirvana to do and a big award will make others less likely to do this in the future.

rockbruno 5y ago
You can't say the motivation doesn't matter when the person is clearly ill-intended. He claims he "has suffered and will continue to suffer lifelong damages". Nobody knew who this person was before he started complaining about it, how could he "suffer damage" from it? There's no case here and any defense lawyer would have a field day with this.
- spoonjim 5y ago
  My reason for not caring about his motivations is that a big reason for torts to exist is to discourage bad behavior from others. If you look at the actions of a major American corporation a huge fraction of them are “so we don’t get sued.” The next time a record label thinks about using an exploitative image of a baby for their advertising, I want them to think “oof, remember when we did that and had to pay out $100 million?” Not “oh yeah, remember that was one of the iconic album covers of all time.” Elden himself hardly matters to this... a judge ordering the label to set $100 million on fire (or make a non-deductible charitable donation) would have the same effect.
  - sokoloff 5y ago
    The record label secured the rights to use the photo from people legally able to grant those rights. I don’t see a legal quandary at all and, unless you think all minors’ likenesses should not be able to appear in commercial material, I don’t see a moral or ethical quandary. Plaintiff’s destination for their complaint is with their parents, IMO. Same as if adult Mikey objected to being associated with Life cereal or adult Macauley Culkin objected to being in Home Alone. Edit to add: > Elden says his parents never signed a release authorising the use of his image on the album. Iff that claim is true (which should be a relatively straightforward finding of fact) and that fact means that the label didn’t have the rights to use the likeness [the claim doesn’t rely on a technicality of the word “release”, but where the label has a license to use], then I’d say he’s got a case.
    - spoonjim 5y ago
      I see this photo as somewhere in the uncomfortable gray area between Macauley Culkin and child pornography. That's why I don't believe the same rules should apply.
      - burnished 5y ago
        What? In what way is this possibly pornographic? It is really uncomfortable to me that you're just going to casually throw that out there as an axis for this to be measured on.
        spoonjim 5y ago
        It is a naked picture of a baby clearly used to provoke and advertise. I'm OK with naked baby photos being taken and kept by parents but I don't think it's OK to use a child's naked photo as one of the iconic commercial photos of a generation. I do not think it is child pornography but I think that it is a misuse of a baby's naked photo in a way that a parent should not be able to consent to on behalf of the child.
        5y ago
- preinheimer 5y ago
  I absolutely think it's possible to suffer as the result of a photo, even if it's not clear you're the subject.
- DSMan195276 5y ago
  > Nobody knew who this person was before he started complaining about it, how could he "suffer damage" from it? Ehh, that seems like pretty shaky logic. I think it's pretty safe to say that lots of people would be bothered by naked pictures of themselves being posted publicly for all to see, even if they can't be identified by the pictures. That's not to say he's going to win, but I think you're simplifying things a bit too much.
  - rockbruno 5y ago
    Sure, but you ignored the part where he's ill-intended. This is obviously not bothering him given that he willingly recreated the picture in the past to milk money out of it.
    - DSMan195276 5y ago
      How is the part I quoted related to whether he's ill-intended or not? Weren't you saying that before anybody knew it was him it was impossible for him to "suffer damage" from it? That's the part I disagree with.
- vmception 5y ago
  It doesnt matter. You can be exuberantly happy about a photo and still have power over it if that power was not signed away. The power in this case is damages which can be collected due to the ongoing commercial use.

dbingham 5y ago

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.

namdnay 5y ago
So I kind of agree, except: 1) nobody would ever have known it was him if he hadn't been trying to milk it for celebrity 2) He's aiming at the record label because they've got the big bucks, but it's his parents who sold him out when they accepted 200$ for a photoshoot
- dbingham 5y ago
  1) People don't have to know its him for it to kind of fuck him up. Honestly, I dunno know if it would mess me up or not to be in his position, but I could definitely imagine it messing some folks up to know that basically everyone had seen you naked and you had no ability to consent. Also, the way I read the articles, I don't believe he reached out for those recreations - the media reached out to him. 2) The record label are the ones who ultimately profited off the image. Edit: Also, it's not like it was hidden that it was him on the album cover. Anyone who wanted to know who the baby was could easily find out it was him. It's in the wikipedia, and I imagine it was probably credited in the Album credits: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevermind#Artwork https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevermind#Artwork That's probably how the media tracked him down for recreations.

gfo 5y ago

Yikes. Despite loving this album, I really thought there might be merit to this lawsuit. And then... this article. Smells like a money grab to me as well.

dehrmann 5y ago
> Smells like a money grab I see what you did, there.

dancemethis 5y ago

Well, must still be humiliating to be part of the thing that downright killed music.

ta1234567890 5y ago

And: > 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.

vmception 5y ago

You really think thats a factor huh. 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.

ksaj 5y ago

"This seems to be a cash grab." That's exactly what the picture is of - the allure of capitalism hooking you right from the start.