6 ms·

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

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.
  - Nicksil 5y ago
    >2) The record label are the ones who ultimately profited off the image. Were the parents (or whomever consented) not compensated?
    - dbingham 5y ago
      A pittance yes. But the record label were the ones who accepted their consent for a baby who ultimately couldn't consent - and the record label were the ones who then distributed the image and made a ton of money off of it. Just because the parents made a morally questionable choice to consent on behalf of their child doesn't absolve the record label of also making the morally questionable choice of distributing and profiting from the naked image of a child who couldn't consent for themselves.
      - namdnay 5y ago
        but no child can consent to anything, so unless we just put a blanket ban on media depictions of under-18s, we have to rely on the consent of the parents i really don't see what the moral question is. they wanted a photo of a newborn swimming, they bought the photo of a newborn swimming
        dbingham 5y ago
        I think it'd be reasonable to reduce the age of consent to kids who actually can consent. 18 is pretty arbitrary. I think it's pretty clear a 14 year old can consent to many things. A 10 or 8 year old can probably also offer partial consent. But a newborn can't. A 2 year old can't. A four year old can't. The line of when a kid can understand what they're consenting to gets blurry from there. And we probably just need much more nuanced consent laws rather than a blanket "You can legally consent at 18, and your parents can consent for you before that." There are certain things we need to let parents consent to - like medical care. But we don't need to let parents consent to the use of their kids image in media. We don't need to allow parents to sell their kids. And I don't think "Well, they can't consent and if we give them consent we can't do this class of thing" is a good enough reason to deny them the ability to consent. So we can't use naked pictures of kids who can't consent in media, or pictures at all. So what? Voluntary consent is important. If respecting voluntary consent means there are things we can't do - then there are things we can't do.
- tshaddox 5y ago
  Nobody would know it’s him even now. I just saw a photograph of him and read his name but I am confident I would never recognize him or the name after a day or two.
  - IgorPartola 5y ago
    Let me use a straw man to make a point: what if instead of that photo shoot and it becoming the cover of an album he was actually sexually exploited as a baby and a photo of that horrific act became widely seen. Do you think it would still fuck him up to know that it happened to him as a child even if you or I couldn’t recognize him? That is to say, I don’t think his issue is so much that people recognize him as the baby on the album cover but the fact that he recognizes himself as that baby.
    - tshaddox 5y ago
      Yes, if the situation was completely different, then I would absolutely have completely different thoughts about the situation. I don't even have a problem with a civil lawsuit making a case that there is emotional distress. But the particular argument being made here is that the album cover constitutes child pornography and that the dollar bill portrays the infant as a sex worker. I'm not a lawyer, but that doesn't seem remotely plausible to me.
      - IgorPartola 5y ago
        Right. I am with you on your point there. My point is not necessarily that his lawsuit does or does not have merit. It is simply that just because nobody knows who he is until he tells them doesn’t mean that damage to him wasn’t done. Ultimately I think his parents fucked up by doing this and not thinking through how it would affect their son.
  - bikezen 5y ago
    Living nearby and having gone to some bars he frequents, he is a frequent user of "Don't you know who I am!"
- tablespoon 5y ago
  > 1) nobody would ever have known it was him if he hadn't been trying to milk it for celebrity It was a thing that happened to him as a baby, and it sounds like he's had conflicted feelings about it. It doesn't seem reasonable to blame him for not acting in just the perfect way for his whole life to minimize the effects on him. > 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 It's not an either or thing. It's totally legitimate to blame all the parties involved. However, of all the parties involved, his parents were likely the most ignorant of what this photo would become. From the OP: > In 2008, Spencer's father Rick recounted the photo shoot to US radio network NPR, saying he had been offered $200 to take part by Weddle [the photographer], who was a family friend. > "We just had a big party at the pool, and no one had any idea what was going on!" > The family quickly forgot the photoshoot until, three months later, they saw the Nevermind album cover blown up on the wall of Tower Records in Los Angeles. I kind of hesitate to use terms like this, but the intent of your comment seems to be to deflect blame towards the least responsible parties, which seems like a kind of victim blaming.
dougmwne 5y ago
Yeah, just imagine. You are born into this mysterious existence full of beauty, suffering, sadness and joy. You live on a mote in an infinite universe, sharing it with billions upon billions of self aware entities just like yourself, and ever since the very first moment you had awareness, each and every one of them had seen your little tiny baby penis. Poor bastard.
ravenstine 5y ago
> 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. As soon as the child pornography argument falls flat on its face (assuming the prosecution is actually that boneheaded), the defense may argue that the magnitude of possible harm is very different considering how the body, mind, and memory of an infant hardly recognizable to their adult counterpart and that there is no sort of humiliating aspect to the album art that would cause the public to view the adult Elden in any negative way. It's not as if Elden doesn't have some point to make. It's bad that he hasn't been compensated for being pictures on one of the most iconic albums ever made. But unless there's something revealed in trial that I don't know, it doesn't appear that the record company or the band did anything wrong. It all hinges on whether there was sexual child exploitation, and although some people on HN seem to believe that the image of the naked body of an infant is inherently sexual in nature (which is creepy to me, but what do I know), I highly doubt that a judge, jury, or regular people are going to buy that argument.
- alephu5 5y ago
  The image has nothing to do with the success of the album, it's the music. They could have put a deflated football on the cover and it would have still been iconic. Given the easy availability of newborn babies, I think $200 is fair.
t8e56vd4ih 5y ago
> 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. beautiful
Grustaf 5y ago
What is it with Americans and the naked body? Babies are supposed to be naked, it's not embarrassing. We put giant photos of ourselves as babies, often naked, on sticks and wave around when we graduate. I have never heard anyone even hint at that being an issue. And for the record, breastfeeding is the most natural thing in the world.
ghufran_syed 5y ago
"It'd be nice to have a quarter for all the people who have seen my baby penis." Sounds like the only issue he has with it is that HE didn't get any of the money.

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.
- Nicksil 5y ago
  >2) The record label are the ones who ultimately profited off the image. Were the parents (or whomever consented) not compensated?
  - dbingham 5y ago
    A pittance yes. But the record label were the ones who accepted their consent for a baby who ultimately couldn't consent - and the record label were the ones who then distributed the image and made a ton of money off of it. Just because the parents made a morally questionable choice to consent on behalf of their child doesn't absolve the record label of also making the morally questionable choice of distributing and profiting from the naked image of a child who couldn't consent for themselves.
    - namdnay 5y ago
      but no child can consent to anything, so unless we just put a blanket ban on media depictions of under-18s, we have to rely on the consent of the parents i really don't see what the moral question is. they wanted a photo of a newborn swimming, they bought the photo of a newborn swimming
      - dbingham 5y ago
        I think it'd be reasonable to reduce the age of consent to kids who actually can consent. 18 is pretty arbitrary. I think it's pretty clear a 14 year old can consent to many things. A 10 or 8 year old can probably also offer partial consent. But a newborn can't. A 2 year old can't. A four year old can't. The line of when a kid can understand what they're consenting to gets blurry from there. And we probably just need much more nuanced consent laws rather than a blanket "You can legally consent at 18, and your parents can consent for you before that." There are certain things we need to let parents consent to - like medical care. But we don't need to let parents consent to the use of their kids image in media. We don't need to allow parents to sell their kids. And I don't think "Well, they can't consent and if we give them consent we can't do this class of thing" is a good enough reason to deny them the ability to consent. So we can't use naked pictures of kids who can't consent in media, or pictures at all. So what? Voluntary consent is important. If respecting voluntary consent means there are things we can't do - then there are things we can't do.
tshaddox 5y ago
Nobody would know it’s him even now. I just saw a photograph of him and read his name but I am confident I would never recognize him or the name after a day or two.
- IgorPartola 5y ago
  Let me use a straw man to make a point: what if instead of that photo shoot and it becoming the cover of an album he was actually sexually exploited as a baby and a photo of that horrific act became widely seen. Do you think it would still fuck him up to know that it happened to him as a child even if you or I couldn’t recognize him? That is to say, I don’t think his issue is so much that people recognize him as the baby on the album cover but the fact that he recognizes himself as that baby.
  - tshaddox 5y ago
    Yes, if the situation was completely different, then I would absolutely have completely different thoughts about the situation. I don't even have a problem with a civil lawsuit making a case that there is emotional distress. But the particular argument being made here is that the album cover constitutes child pornography and that the dollar bill portrays the infant as a sex worker. I'm not a lawyer, but that doesn't seem remotely plausible to me.
    - IgorPartola 5y ago
      Right. I am with you on your point there. My point is not necessarily that his lawsuit does or does not have merit. It is simply that just because nobody knows who he is until he tells them doesn’t mean that damage to him wasn’t done. Ultimately I think his parents fucked up by doing this and not thinking through how it would affect their son.
- bikezen 5y ago
  Living nearby and having gone to some bars he frequents, he is a frequent user of "Don't you know who I am!"
tablespoon 5y ago
> 1) nobody would ever have known it was him if he hadn't been trying to milk it for celebrity It was a thing that happened to him as a baby, and it sounds like he's had conflicted feelings about it. It doesn't seem reasonable to blame him for not acting in just the perfect way for his whole life to minimize the effects on him. > 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 It's not an either or thing. It's totally legitimate to blame all the parties involved. However, of all the parties involved, his parents were likely the most ignorant of what this photo would become. From the OP: > In 2008, Spencer's father Rick recounted the photo shoot to US radio network NPR, saying he had been offered $200 to take part by Weddle [the photographer], who was a family friend. > "We just had a big party at the pool, and no one had any idea what was going on!" > The family quickly forgot the photoshoot until, three months later, they saw the Nevermind album cover blown up on the wall of Tower Records in Los Angeles. I kind of hesitate to use terms like this, but the intent of your comment seems to be to deflect blame towards the least responsible parties, which seems like a kind of victim blaming.

dougmwne 5y ago

Yeah, just imagine. You are born into this mysterious existence full of beauty, suffering, sadness and joy. You live on a mote in an infinite universe, sharing it with billions upon billions of self aware entities just like yourself, and ever since the very first moment you had awareness, each and every one of them had seen your little tiny baby penis. Poor bastard.

ravenstine 5y ago

> 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. As soon as the child pornography argument falls flat on its face (assuming the prosecution is actually that boneheaded), the defense may argue that the magnitude of possible harm is very different considering how the body, mind, and memory of an infant hardly recognizable to their adult counterpart and that there is no sort of humiliating aspect to the album art that would cause the public to view the adult Elden in any negative way. It's not as if Elden doesn't have some point to make. It's bad that he hasn't been compensated for being pictures on one of the most iconic albums ever made. But unless there's something revealed in trial that I don't know, it doesn't appear that the record company or the band did anything wrong. It all hinges on whether there was sexual child exploitation, and although some people on HN seem to believe that the image of the naked body of an infant is inherently sexual in nature (which is creepy to me, but what do I know), I highly doubt that a judge, jury, or regular people are going to buy that argument.

alephu5 5y ago
The image has nothing to do with the success of the album, it's the music. They could have put a deflated football on the cover and it would have still been iconic. Given the easy availability of newborn babies, I think $200 is fair.

t8e56vd4ih 5y ago

> 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. beautiful

Grustaf 5y ago

What is it with Americans and the naked body? Babies are supposed to be naked, it's not embarrassing. We put giant photos of ourselves as babies, often naked, on sticks and wave around when we graduate. I have never heard anyone even hint at that being an issue. And for the record, breastfeeding is the most natural thing in the world.

ghufran_syed 5y ago

"It'd be nice to have a quarter for all the people who have seen my baby penis." Sounds like the only issue he has with it is that HE didn't get any of the money.