> 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 lik

> 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.