[Closed] Nevermind baby sues Nirvana

I’m pretty sure I’ve seen evidence of this guy living off this story on various gossip sites. He could dine out on it for the rest of his life.

The guy who has recreated the cover on several occasions…. looks like he’s hoping to dine out on it for the rest of his life, or until the $1.5m is spent

Claiming it's sexual exploitation is a bit ridiculous. Probably fair enough for him to get some cash for such an iconic image though. He did already get a dream job for five years out of it as a minimum, so....

Saw this earlier.

So he is arguing he didn't give consent, which would be difficult as he was four months old at the time and sexual exploitation which seems tenuous at best, a nude image doesn't automatically have to sexual / pornographic in nature.

I think arguing he wasn't paid for the original image might be justified but the other stuff is pretty ridiculous. If he was harmed by the image then why did he consent to re-enacting it at various anniversary of the album's release.

I thought the sexual component was a bit much considering how much he has done recreating yet.
I can accept he hasn't made much money or of it but to claim all that is dumb and he seems to have undermined some of his claim by his own previous actions anyway

I think arguing he wasn’t paid for the original image might be justified

Sounds like someone is running out of money

Given that Kurt's estate alone is worth a reported $450M. Surely you'd just reach down the sofa, have a rummage, settle it?

Never that easy though, is it?

I’m pretty sure I’ve seen evidence of this guy living off this story on various gossip sites.

And, according to the report I read had the album cover tattooed on his chest. I'd hope that in the UK he'd get laughed out of court and given a lovely large legal bill from the defence, but as it's the USA, he'll probably win.

If anyone finds that image sexual then it's not the image which is the problem.

I was expecting this to be about Nirvana Cycles in Westcott - maybe someone complaining that they'd been 'dropped' on one of their group rides ?

If anyone finds that image sexual then it’s not the image which is the problem.

That reminds me of when our son was born and spent a while in NICU. I wanted a photo of his first bath but the matron put her hand over his bits for "privacy" reasons.
Still got the the picture, censored and non censored versions.

Cougar

If anyone finds that image sexual then it’s not the image which is the problem

Yeah, notice the BBC crop the image just in case

Saw it, shook my head and can't understand why it is even being considered...nothing to contend as from what I understand, it was all done and dusted and he is now just trying to cash in when it has already paid out.

Man's a total fanny and is belittling child sexual exploitation.

And, according to the report I read had the album cover tattooed on his chest. I’d hope that in the UK he’d get laughed out of court and given a lovely large legal bill from the defence, but as it’s the USA, he’ll probably win.

Aye. This guy is only pursuing this avenue now because he's in the US and believes he has a chance. He needs to grow up and move on.

Good luck to him I say, so what? At least he's sueing people who can afford it.
n.b how do you spell sueing? 😂

Sad thing is, whatever the outcome someone will be making money out of this, if ever there was a case for the judge to hold up a placard saying "jog on"

Man’s a total fanny and is belittling child sexual exploitation.

Very much this. Utter fud.

Premier Icon
jekkyl
Full Member

Good luck to him I say, so what?

It opens the door for every person who has ever had their image on an album cover to come looking for more cash I’d imagine. Especially when it’s a small bands breakthrough album

Lucky for the Van Halen estate that the cover of 1984 was a painting! 🙂

Which album cover will be next? Spinal Tap's Smell the Glove?

Guardian article reports

The lawsuit claims the image is “sexually graphic”, and says it makes Elden resemble “a sex worker – grabbing for a dollar bill”

Hahahahahaha. Talk about clutching at straws. Pretty sure that’s the first time ever a naked baby has been confused for a sex worker.

The lawsuit claims the image is “sexually graphic”, and says it makes Elden resemble “a sex worker – grabbing for a dollar bill”

I really wonder if anyone has come to that conclusion apart from him. I assumed it was some kind of vague anti-capitalist thing as in 'we are all trained to chase the dollar even from birth' kind of thing.

Given that Kurt’s estate alone is worth a reported $450M. Surely you’d just reach down the sofa, have a rummage, settle it?

Never that easy though, is it?

I presume this is what he is aiming/hoping for.

Think Cougar and brads have hit the nail on the head here.

Also in one of the links in that original link he said to a photographer he wanted to do a recreation naked. Americans and the art of suing I guess, hope its chuck(L)ed out of court

If anyone finds that image sexual then it’s not the image which is the problem.

Beautifully put.

Which album cover will be next? Spinal Tap’s Smell the Glove?

I'd go with

My Sharona or the Roxy music album I forgot the name of

Nevermind. Move on!

There’s always Led Zep Houses of the Holy , to say nothing of Scorpions Virgin Killer. (Don’t google that last one….)

The siamese twins from Smashing Pumpkins Siamese dream who presumably were on the cover for being errr *checks notes* siamese twins.

Talk about clutching at straws

Dollars.

Money-grabbing freeloader wants more.

Twunt.

While I'd agree it seems pretty meritless.

If he was harmed by the image then why did he consent to re-enacting it at various anniversary of the album’s release.

Is a really weak argument. It's along the same lines as "well she didn't fight back" or "but she was flirting with him [to try and diffuse the situation and get out]", or "they can't have a right to their iCloud photos remaining private because we've already seen their boobs in a film".

In that scenario he's got no power, the albums out there, even if he didn't come forward his name would be mentioned in hundreds of clickbait "you wouldn't believe what the Nirvana baby looks like now" articles. So it'd be entirely reasonable to try and do something like recreating it in order to try and keep some sort of ownership of the story rather than just waiting for the next flood of social media messages when clickbait.com shoves your photo in front of random people on the internet.

The siamese twins from Smashing Pumpkins Siamese dream who presumably were on the cover for being errr *checks notes* siamese twins.

Checks notes... Nope they weren't even sisters.

In that scenario he’s got no power,

You're right, he was flung in the pool at gunpoint so everyone knows who was the baby weiner. It traumatised him so much through his life that he kept doing it over and over. I don't know how the photographer lives with himself.

TINAS is right though. When someone who has been abused maintains friendship/contact with the abuser that doesn't negate the abuse does it. Not that I think that's directly relevant in this situation but it is a poor argument.

However I think there is an issue with consent here - maybe don't use babies for stuff like this given that they aren't able to understand the concept of consent. See also parents who constantly post pictures of their kids online. 😛

Attention seeking parasite.

Done without his permission. At 4 months he's well below the age where his personal permission can be given and thats solely in the hands of his parents, who received not only a fee for the shot, but were also given a platinum album.
Since then he's sought to capitalize on it for personal gain, and this seems like a further extension of this.

TINAS is right though.

No, he's not.

When someone who has been abused maintains friendship/contact with the abuser that doesn’t negate the abuse does it.

Of course it doesn't.

Not that I think that’s directly relevant in this situation but it is a poor argument.

See point 1. Its not relevant at all.

I have pictures of me in the scud at that age, perhaps I should report my parents as peados? Because that's essentially his argument that TINAS is supporting and in doing so totally belittling abuse victims in exactly the same way as the complainant.

Attention seeking parasite.

who are you referring to? Cobain's estate who've been made extremely wealthy partly because of the image? or perhaps Kirk Weddle the photographer that took the shot and seems to make a living selling it,  and images like it probably charging thousands for their use?

Seems to me that they're exploiting it for all it's worth, why shouldn't the actual subject get in on the action?...It's a million and some change for the surviving members and Cobain's estate, they probably wouldn't notice it. "Here you go chap, no hard feelings, eh?"

seems to me to be the fair thing to do, but what do I know.

Just.... Beautiful

who are you referring to?

D'oh. Who do you think. The guy everyone from here to twitter and beyond is thinking and saying is trying to scam a free lunch, a $2,500,000 free lunch.

Oh aye, set a precedent, give any old tom dick or harry a million quid because he's on some album cover that his parents have already been paid for . I wonder what a signed Nirvana platinum disc sells for these days 😕 Like the one that the band gifted to his parents.

Cobain’s estate who’ve been made extremely wealthy partly because of the image? or perhaps

I think thats entirely down to the band and the music, not the cover pic. How bizarre to think that.
And perhaps ?. perhaps perhaps perhaps maybe perhaps. Lets go for the hypothetical maybe argument.

I wonder if Baxter Dury will sue his Dad’s estate for being on the cover of New Boots & Panties!

Which album cover will be next?

Blind Faith’s one will probably beat the top.

Surely to keep it to the same musical era the Bee girl from Blind Melon’s album should be next in line to sue. Small child, dead lead singer, all the elements are there. Plus she even danced in the video for No Rain. Surely some sort of humiliation bonus is on the cards too.

I have pictures of me in the scud at that age, perhaps I should report my parents as peados? Because that’s essentially his argument that TINAS is supporting

No, I'm beginning to get pissed at this forums ability to snip quotes and take them out of context.

@squirrelking
My parents as(sic) peados

See.

But my original point was that you can't really hold someone's behaviour during or since the event up as evidence as to whether they are actually OK with it.

And without the selective arguing, my point was that it really doesn't seem from the outside that that is the case here. It's just a really crap argument in general and shouldn't be applied to anything like this.

But my original point was that you can’t really hold someone’s behaviour during or since the event up as evidence as to whether they are actually OK with it.

And without the selective arguing, my point was that it really doesn’t seem from the outside that that is the case here. It’s just a really crap argument in general and shouldn’t be applied to anything like this.

Have you, and others like nickc actually read the Twitter quote above? He actually states that he’s been perfectly ok with it up until recently, when the surviving members of Nirvana didn’t get back to him after he asked them to get involved with his art exhibition.
He’s blatantly retroactively claiming for distress that’s never been an issue, until now.
I’m very surprised he isn’t suing his parents for everything they have, because they clearly exposed him to his supposed lifetime of harm and ridicule, by actually taking him to the pool, dropping him into the water, and then allowing a photographer to take a couple of photographs.
The $200 they were paid is the standard rate for a model at a photo-shoot, so his ire should be directed at them.
Funny how it isn’t.
I definitely think that photo accurately represents everything that he’s doing, it couldn’t be mor appropriate.

India not think anyone is suggesting this guy has a legitimate complaint, just that we don't need to use spurious grounds to say so.

I have pictures of me in the scud at that age, perhaps I should report my parents as peados? Because that’s essentially his argument that TINAS is supporting and in doing so totally belittling abuse victims in exactly the same way as the complainant.

This is so stupid it's hard to know where to start. Are you being deliberately obtuse?

Have you actually read the article? If you have you'll see exactly what I'm basing my stupid argument on. That goes for both of you. I'm using exactly the same argument he is. ****ing ridiculous isn't it?

Which album cover will be next? Spinal Tap’s Smell the Glove?

That Chumbawumba one. That gave me a fright the first time I saw it!

Hoping to make enough noise to get a payoff.

twitter quote from @submarined nails it for me.

Also, what @brads said.

Money-grabbing baby turns out to be ...

 He actually states that he’s been perfectly ok with it up until recently

Yep, and I've seen other articles where he says that sometimes sitting in say a crowd of people and realising that most (if not all) have seen him in all his glory fills him with panic attacks. Like most of us, his feelings swing back and forth.  It's safe to say that most folks on the planet have seen this guy's dick, and other folk are making piles of cash from it.

I'd say that's worth some compo.

other folk are making piles of cash from it.

Thats the entire basis of copyright law, rights holders and model releases. You do know that right? By "compensating" this "victim" you would open a floodgate and completely **** over every copyright and rights owner in existence.

I'm not even going into the rest of it, his claims read like the script from a shite sitcom.

Thats the entire basis of copyright law, rights holders and model releases

Yes hence the spurious "sexualised" element to the claim. Interestingly, The only reason they went down the route of a photo shoot in the first place, was that Cobain wanted a water birth picture, but not only were they thought to be too gruesome, they also didn't want to pay the stock photo image costs which were offered at (I think) about £7,500 a year.

you could also make the point that not paying this guy a "fair" share isn't exactly Punk is it? I mean the estate of Cobain hordes money and Cobain himself is on record saying how much he hated all that shit. I suspect he'd be pretty open to giving him a slice of the record's profits, but I doubt he'll get a penny

most folks on the planet have seen this guy’s dick

Only if it's still the same as it was in the photo. Which I suspect is most of his issue.
And anyway its a ****ing old album and no-one sees the sleeve when they're streaming on spotify etc.
Some folk are looking at this way too deeply, it's obviously a money grabbing ploy and all the mental health stuff has been made up by his lawyer to make a case.

I’d say that’s worth some compo.

But he's received compo, his parents were paid a sum of money in exchange for the photo which they presumably agreed was fair at the time. You don't get a plumber chasing you for extra money after you paid him to fit a bathroom 25 years ago.

No, I’m beginning to get pissed at this forums ability to snip quotes and take them out of context.

I do it all the time. It's not an intention to deceive, it's simply a place-holder to continue the conversation. The context hasn't gone, it's still there if you scroll back.

There's nothing worse than forum pages where a post is a verbatim quote of the previous one, then the next post contains a copy of that one along with the previous post nested inside it, etc etc. so by the end you've got individual posts with pretty much the entire thread copied along with the poster's new content which is about four words. It's just not necessary.

If anyone finds that image sexual then it’s not the image which is the problem.

Beautifully put.

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Cobain say this decades ago?

It’s just not necessary.

Agreed

Anyway, he'll probably get an out of court settlement. I don't think he deserves it and the entire thing is completely frivolous but the Nirvana / Cobain estate would probably want to limit their exposure.

Nicely done.

Correct me if I’m wrong but didn’t Cobain say this decades ago?

If he did then I was not aware of it.

It’s safe to say that most folks on the planet have seen this guy’s dick, and other folk are making piles of cash from it.

The only reason anyone will know it’s his dick is if he tells them though, he looks a little different to the album cover now

it’s obviously a money grabbing ploy and all the mental health stuff has been made up by his lawyer to make a case.

Theres an 'only in America' aspect to this. You can sue anyone for anything anywhere -  but in the US its quite difficult to sue your lawyer for giving you terrible advice and wasting your time and money by encouraging you to pursue hopeless causes.

A good lawyer should have advised him he doesn't have a leg to stand on and put the phone down - what he's got is a lawyer who's happily inventing legs - and can happily do so while lining his pockets with his client's money without any real fear of reproach.

Correct me if I’m wrong but didn’t Cobain say this decades ago?

If he did then I was not aware of it.

Incoming royalties claim!

This is the clearest case for a class action since the film the Never Ending Story ...

most folks on the planet

*Some* folks in *predominantly western* indie music circles.

I doubt my dad has seen it.

https://newsthump.com/2021/08/26/banana-to-sue-the-velvet-underground-over-exploitative-album-cover/

There’s nothing worse than forum pages where a post is a verbatim quote of the previous one, then the next post contains a copy of that one along with the previous post nested inside it, etc etc. so by the end you’ve got individual posts with pretty much the entire thread copied along with the poster’s new content which is about four words. It’s just not necessary.

I absolutely hate those sort of fora, I lose the will to live after getting halfway down a page.

Attention seeking parasite.

who are you referring to? Cobain’s estate who’ve been made extremely wealthy partly because of the image? or perhaps Kirk Weddle the photographer that took the shot and seems to make a living selling it,  and images like it probably charging thousands for their use?

Seems to me that they’re exploiting it for all it’s worth, why shouldn’t the actual subject get in on the action?…It’s a million and some change for the surviving members and Cobain’s estate, they probably wouldn’t notice it. “Here you go chap, no hard feelings, eh?”

seems to me to be the fair thing to do, but what do I know.

Just…. Beautiful

who are you referring to?

D’oh. Who do you think. The guy everyone from here to twitter and beyond is thinking and saying is trying to scam a free lunch, a $2,500,000 free lunch.

Oh aye, set a precedent, give any old tom dick or harry a million quid because he’s on some album cover that his parents have already been paid for . I wonder what a signed Nirvana platinum disc sells for these days 😕 Like the one that the band gifted to his parents.

Cobain’s estate who’ve been made extremely wealthy partly because of the image? or perhaps

I think thats entirely down to the band and the music, not the cover pic. How bizarre to think that.
And perhaps ?. perhaps perhaps perhaps maybe perhaps. Lets go for the hypothetical maybe argument.

I wonder if Baxter Dury will sue his Dad’s estate for being on the cover of New Boots & Panties!

Which album cover will be next?

Blind Faith’s one will probably beat the top.

Surely to keep it to the same musical era the Bee girl from Blind Melon’s album should be next in line to sue. Small child, dead lead singer, all the elements are there. Plus she even danced in the video for No Rain. Surely some sort of humiliation bonus is on the cards too.

I have pictures of me in the scud at that age, perhaps I should report my parents as peados? Because that’s essentially his argument that TINAS is supporting

No, I’m beginning to get pissed at this forums ability to snip quotes and take them out of context.

My parents as(sic) peados

See.

But my original point was that you can’t really hold someone’s behaviour during or since the event up as evidence as to whether they are actually OK with it.

And without the selective arguing, my point was that it really doesn’t seem from the outside that that is the case here. It’s just a really crap argument in general and shouldn’t be applied to anything like this.

But my original point was that you can’t really hold someone’s behaviour during or since the event up as evidence as to whether they are actually OK with it.

And without the selective arguing, my point was that it really doesn’t seem from the outside that that is the case here. It’s just a really crap argument in general and shouldn’t be applied to anything like this.

Have you, and others like nickc actually read the Twitter quote above? He actually states that he’s been perfectly ok with it up until recently, when the surviving members of Nirvana didn’t get back to him after he asked them to get involved with his art exhibition.
He’s blatantly retroactively claiming for distress that’s never been an issue, until now.
I’m very surprised he isn’t suing his parents for everything they have, because they clearly exposed him to his supposed lifetime of harm and ridicule, by actually taking him to the pool, dropping him into the water, and then allowing a photographer to take a couple of photographs.
The $200 they were paid is the standard rate for a model at a photo-shoot, so his ire should be directed at them.
Funny how it isn’t.
I definitely think that photo accurately represents everything that he’s doing, it couldn’t be mor appropriate.

India not think anyone is suggesting this guy has a legitimate complaint, just that we don’t need to use spurious grounds to say so.

I have pictures of me in the scud at that age, perhaps I should report my parents as peados? Because that’s essentially his argument that TINAS is supporting and in doing so totally belittling abuse victims in exactly the same way as the complainant.

This is so stupid it’s hard to know where to start. Are you being deliberately obtuse?

Have you actually read the article? If you have you’ll see exactly what I’m basing my stupid argument on. That goes for both of you. I’m using exactly the same argument he is. * ridiculous isn’t it?

Which album cover will be next? Spinal Tap’s Smell the Glove?

That Chumbawumba one. That gave me a fright the first time I saw it!

Hoping to make enough noise to get a payoff.

twitter quote from nails it for me.

Also, what said.

Money-grabbing baby turns out to be …

He actually states that he’s been perfectly ok with it up until recently

Yep, and I’ve seen other articles where he says that sometimes sitting in say a crowd of people and realising that most (if not all) have seen him in all his glory fills him with panic attacks. Like most of us, his feelings swing back and forth.  It’s safe to say that most folks on the planet have seen this guy’s dick, and other folk are making piles of cash from it.

I’d say that’s worth some compo.

other folk are making piles of cash from it.

Thats the entire basis of copyright law, rights holders and model releases. You do know that right? By “compensating” this “victim” you would open a floodgate and completely * over every copyright and rights owner in existence.

I’m not even going into the rest of it, his claims read like the script from a shite sitcom.

Thats the entire basis of copyright law, rights holders and model releases

Yes hence the spurious “sexualised” element to the claim. Interestingly, The only reason they went down the route of a photo shoot in the first place, was that Cobain wanted a water birth picture, but not only were they thought to be too gruesome, they also didn’t want to pay the stock photo image costs which were offered at (I think) about £7,500 a year.

you could also make the point that not paying this guy a “fair” share isn’t exactly Punk is it? I mean the estate of Cobain hordes money and Cobain himself is on record saying how much he hated all that shit. I suspect he’d be pretty open to giving him a slice of the record’s profits, but I doubt he’ll get a penny

most folks on the planet have seen this guy’s dick

Only if it’s still the same as it was in the photo. Which I suspect is most of his issue.
And anyway its a **** old album and no-one sees the sleeve when they’re streaming on spotify etc.
Some folk are looking at this way too deeply, it’s obviously a money grabbing ploy and all the mental health stuff has been made up by his lawyer to make a case.

I’d say that’s worth some compo.

But he’s received compo, his parents were paid a sum of money in exchange for the photo which they presumably agreed was fair at the time. You don’t get a plumber chasing you for extra money after you paid him to fit a bathroom 25 years ago.

No, I’m beginning to get pissed at this forums ability to snip quotes and take them out of context.

I do it all the time. It’s not an intention to deceive, it’s simply a place-holder to continue the conversation. The context hasn’t gone, it’s still there if you scroll back.

There’s nothing worse than forum pages where a post is a verbatim quote of the previous one, then the next post contains a copy of that one along with the previous post nested inside it, etc etc. so by the end you’ve got individual posts with pretty much the entire thread copied along with the poster’s new content which is about four words. It’s just not necessary.

If anyone finds that image sexual then it’s not the image which is the problem.

Beautifully put.

Correct me if I’m wrong but didn’t Cobain say this decades ago?

It’s just not necessary.

Agreed

Anyway, he’ll probably get an out of court settlement. I don’t think he deserves it and the entire thing is completely frivolous but the Nirvana / Cobain estate would probably want to limit their exposure.

Nicely done.

Correct me if I’m wrong but didn’t Cobain say this decades ago?

If he did then I was not aware of it.

It’s safe to say that most folks on the planet have seen this guy’s dick, and other folk are making piles of cash from it.

The only reason anyone will know it’s his dick is if he tells them though, he looks a little different to the album cover now

it’s obviously a money grabbing ploy and all the mental health stuff has been made up by his lawyer to make a case.

Theres an ‘only in America’ aspect to this. You can sue anyone for anything anywhere –  but in the US its quite difficult to sue your lawyer for giving you terrible advice and wasting your time and money by encouraging you to pursue hopeless causes.

A good lawyer should have advised him he doesn’t have a leg to stand on and put the phone down – what he’s got is a lawyer who’s happily inventing legs – and can happily do so while lining his pockets with his client’s money without any real fear of reproach.

Correct me if I’m wrong but didn’t Cobain say this decades ago?

If he did then I was not aware of it.

Incoming royalties claim!

This is the clearest case for a class action since the film the Never Ending Story …

most folks on the planet

*Some* folks in *predominantly western* indie music circles.

I doubt my dad has seen it.

There’s nothing worse than forum pages where a post is a verbatim quote of the previous one, then the next post contains a copy of that one along with the previous post nested inside it, etc etc. so by the end you’ve got individual posts with pretty much the entire thread copied along with the poster’s new content which is about four words. It’s just not necessary.

I absolutely hate those sort of fora, I lose the will to live after getting halfway down a page.

Can’t quote any posts at all, a lack of IT skills is the problem.

Premier Icon
bullshotcrummond
Free Member

I was expecting this to be about Nirvana Cycles in Westcott – maybe someone complaining that they’d been ‘dropped’ on one of their group rides ?

I appreciated this, and if I would have sued after the first one of their rides I went on 🙂

"why shouldn’t the actual subject get in on the action"

The Council who own that Pelican Crossing in Abbey Road should be getting a mint then...

The Council who own that Pelican Crossing in Abbey Road should be getting a mint then…

Hasn't it moved site?  I don't think the original exists any more....Not much of a case 😉

If he did then I was not aware of it

Expect a letter from his lawyers any day now!!

Well colour me shocked.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-59867369

Can't have been that important if they never bothered responding in time.

What a knob. Justice done.

I think he has time to amend the claim and re-file.

But yes, seems like a knob.

Oh well, whatever, never mind.