Come as you are? Nevermind
August 27, 2021 9:13 AM Subscribe

Spencer Elden, the now 30-year old who was the baby on the cover of Nirvana’s Nevermind album, has launched a lawsuit against 15 defendants related to the album and photo. Though he has previously embraced being the “Nirvana baby,” he now feels he was, among other accusations, sexually exploited.
posted by girlmightlive (163 comments total) 8 users marked this as a favorite

slow clap for post title
posted by pompomtom at 9:16 AM on August 27, 2021 [29 favorites]

He's suing the original drummer of Nirvana who was long gone before the band made "Nevermind", but not his father, who agreed to the whole thing. Also, this bit from the lawsuit sure is something:

“To ensure the album cover would trigger a visceral sexual response from the viewer, Weddle activated Spencer’s ‘gag reflex’ before throwing him underwater in poses highlighting and emphasizing Spencer’s exposed genitals. Fisher purchased fishhooks from a bait and tackle shop to add to the scene. At least one or more film cartridges were exposed in a short period of time which included at least 40 or 50 different image shots of Spencer. Cobain chose the image depicting Spencer — like a sex worker — grabbing for a dollar bill that is positioned dangling from a fishhook in front of his nude body with his penis explicitly displayed.”
posted by jonathanhughes at 9:19 AM on August 27, 2021 [2 favorites]

I presume Elden's parents signed a contract when the photos were taken. But frankly, I don't believe that matters, because Elden didn't consent. He couldn't; he was a baby. And even if Elden has spoken positively of his fame in the past, I believe that people are allowed to change their minds and that consent for anything can be revoked at any time, for any reason.

I hope Elden makes a comfortable profit from this suit, and that the public at large learns a valuable lesson about the need to be careful with other people's images.
posted by Faint of Butt at 9:23 AM on August 27, 2021 [6 favorites]

I believe that people are allowed to change their minds and that consent for anything can be revoked at any time, for any reason.

Retroactively, though?
posted by jacquilynne at 9:28 AM on August 27, 2021 [28 favorites]

I think there are definitely conversations to be had about using photographs of children who are far too young to consent, but he's going about this in a way that makes it look like a naked (heh) cash grab. A photo of an unclothed baby should be considered non-sexual by default, but should parents really be allowed to plaster that photo out in public?

There are parents all over social media using their kids to make money and it feels icky and exploitative to me. But if we make laws against that, then do we also outlaw child actors in Hollywood films? Given the terrible experiences many children have in the acting world, would that be a bad idea? It's complicated.
posted by LouCPurr at 9:29 AM on August 27, 2021 [27 favorites]

Retroactively, though?

I believe so, yes.
posted by Faint of Butt at 9:31 AM on August 27, 2021 [1 favorite]

Retroactively, though?

Is it really retroactive if you couldn't give it in the first place? Embracing the notoriety as a coping mechanism being a form of consent isn't really any road we want to go down.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 9:31 AM on August 27, 2021 [18 favorites]

Here he is recreating the cover in 2008.

"Stuff happens like random cool situations where I get paid $500 just to go hang out," Elden said. "People just call me up and they're like, 'Hey you're the Nirvana baby, right? Well just come and swim in my pool and we'll give you some money.'"

Here's another interview with him in 2011, talking about how cool it all is.

“They went to the local pool, threw me in the water and that was it. It was a friend-helping-a-friend kind of thing.”

And also, he uses it as a pickup line, telling people that they've seen his penis before but...:

“It's changed, do you want to see it?"

Here he is recreating the cover again in 2016.

“I said to the photographer, ‘Let’s do it naked.’ But he thought that would be weird, so I wore my swim shorts,” Spencer, who sports a “Nevermind” tattoo across his chest, told the New York Post. “It’s cool but weird to be part of something so important that I don’t even remember.”

posted by DirtyOldTown at 9:31 AM on August 27, 2021 [20 favorites]

...depicting Spencer — like a sex worker — grabbing for a dollar bill...

That feels likes a stretch. I always assumed it was some sort of commentary on greed and human nature.
posted by scottatdrake at 9:33 AM on August 27, 2021 [73 favorites]

But frankly, I don't believe that matters, because Elden didn't consent. He couldn't; he was a baby.

The logical conclusion of this statement is that at no stage can a young child be depicted in a commercial work at all. Perhaps that would be a better world, but there is no legal basis for a person to retroactively revoke consent for a photographic depiction.

And the assertion that nudity is on its face pornographic is deeply, deeply troubling.
posted by tclark at 9:36 AM on August 27, 2021 [157 favorites]

That baby is still chasing a dollar?
posted by snofoam at 9:36 AM on August 27, 2021 [131 favorites]

To add: presuming that Elden was wronged by the photograph, the wrong committed by his parents for consenting to the photograph and its use is equally their responsibility if not more so than the band.
posted by tclark at 9:40 AM on August 27, 2021 [17 favorites]

He's spent years hyping himself as the Nirvana cover baby, recreating the shoot more than once IIRC, and consistently complaining he wasn't paid enough/doesn't get residuals. That got him nothing, so now he's filed this nuisance lawsuit in hopes of a settlement.

I am not a lawyer and I am not going to try to jump into the actual legal side of this, but it doesn't matter why he objects to it and I don't think we should be trying to make inferences about his motivations in this way. The way you feel about events you didn't consent to, particularly events that encroach upon sexuality or your body's autonomy, changes over time. (From my own experience going through a sexually manipulative situation that I did not consent to, I can report that it took me a full decade to consciously acknowledge what had happened as exploitative and completely unwanted.) If it were my naked body on the cover of one of the most famous albums in history, I expect that my feelings about it would change over time and that these mental and emotional changes would likely takes years or even decades.
posted by cubeb at 9:41 AM on August 27, 2021 [28 favorites]

The logical conclusion of this statement is that at no stage can a young child be depicted in a commercial work at all.

That works for me.
posted by Faint of Butt at 9:44 AM on August 27, 2021 [8 favorites]

he uses it as a pickup line

I don't know how to reconcile "I was sexually exploited" with "I use that experience as a pickup line" exactly but something doesn't line up there.
posted by axiom at 9:48 AM on August 27, 2021 [4 favorites]

He also alleges the nude image constitutes child pornography.

This seems like weird garbage unless he has some evidence that people were circulating the cover art as porn / using it as porn. I feel like modern me (contra, perhaps, some older version of me) is willing to hear the argument, but it still sounds pretty dang thin on the face.
posted by Going To Maine at 9:48 AM on August 27, 2021 [8 favorites]

It's kind of a two things can be true at once thing for me. I am 100% on board with the notion that minors have the right to change their minds on these issues later in adulthood and that exploitation and trauma are real. I also believe this particular person is transparently full of shit.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 9:49 AM on August 27, 2021 [114 favorites]

Here’s how his past behavior is relevant to now: It really looks like he’s tried to milk every possible drop out of this thing and is now just trying a new angle. He didn’t have to tell anyone that he was that baby, didn’t have to get any tattoos about it or try to use it to bang chicks - he made those choices to tie himself to the album. It’s possible that he’s bringing everyone’s attention to it again and trying to hit the piñata from another angle. The conversation could be “hey, did you know that the show runner of (some show), the CEO of (some company)/VP of marketing was the Nevermind baby? Weird, huh? Anyway, who wants to order lunch?”

Or, maybe it’s whatever retroactive abuse someone else says it is. Ultimately this is the Internet, where everyone brings their own biases to people they know nothing about and makes sweeping judgments.
posted by chinese_fashion at 9:56 AM on August 27, 2021 [18 favorites]

The NYTimes article makes a good point that just because the plaintiff in this case had an inconsistent public response about the photo doesn't mean it didn't cause real harm. I think there's also good point that this will be tough to predict a judicial outcome for, especially due to the concern of the judges on what kind of precedent is being set.

Now time for my personal opinion; the real harm was done, not when the parents consented to the photo, or when the photo was put on an album cover, but when this family decided to make their identity known. Dude could've lived happily never knowing he was that kid. Dude could've been informed by letter from the photographer when he was 25 like "hey, do what you will with this information, you're an adult now" and not had his developing sexual identity shaped by this photo one bit.

Now time for an even more personal opinion. The morality of showing infant gonads seems 100% to be culturally dependent. I think it is *profoundly* hubristic to be a moral absolutist about whether the idea of have a baby phallus on a significant popular work of art is sketchy or not. Traveling in some rural parts of the world... and traveling in the backyards of my friends who have toddlers... infant gonads are a part of life. They're everywhere. I work in a job were I deal with them everyday, and it's so striking how uncomfortable some new parents are with the idea of working around the genitalia of their babies. It's an awkwardness that seems so unecessary. But ideas and ideals of modesty vary wildly from family to family. Therefore, given this perfectly valid variety of personal responses... this seems like the type of thing law should stay away from but... yeah... we all have to be humble enough to hear the other side.
posted by midmarch snowman at 9:57 AM on August 27, 2021 [28 favorites]

Retroactively, though?

I believe so, yes.

How does that work, though? Do you mean just retroactively revoking consent to something like use of image where the use is ongoing? So, like, Nevermind would have to be reissued with different cover art and no longer sold with the original art? Or do you mean you could literally retroactively revoke consent to the actual act?

Is it really retroactive if you couldn't give it in the first place? Embracing the notoriety as a coping mechanism being a form of consent isn't really any road we want to go down.

Yeah, this situation is weird, because there was no consent in the first place, at least not from the person involved, only from their parents. But I was responding way more to Faint of Butt's blanket assertion that consent for anything could be withdrawn at any time, including possibly after the fact.
posted by jacquilynne at 9:57 AM on August 27, 2021 [6 favorites]

Weird thought. Can he prove that it is actually a photo of him?
posted by bz at 9:59 AM on August 27, 2021 [2 favorites]

I 100% believe this kid (or anyone) has the right to revoke consent. It's an important issue, even if I personally doubt his motives and kinda wish he were not the face of this. I can walk and chew gum at the same time. And lord, this has been a year for me where I have to get comfortable living with/holding two different opinions at the same time.

AND I say that as a person who works in an industry in part reliant on the security/convenience of model release forms holding up.
posted by thivaia at 10:03 AM on August 27, 2021 [4 favorites]

bz, if the case somehow showed that he was swapped with another baby after this, I would consider it right in the wheelhouse of the past few years.
posted by OnTheLastCastle at 10:03 AM on August 27, 2021 [5 favorites]

I will say this, though... He's not wrong that they could stand to pay him something. He's taking a truly shitty route to get there. Sexual trauma shouldn't be a fake neck brace you put on because your ambulance chasing attorney says it will get you paid. And I think that is what rankles me. Real people really experience this real problem and it shouldn't be exploited as a grift. But thinking maybe they should give him something? I'm kinda with him on that.

I mean, how could you not feel a little for him when you hear stuff like this (from the original article): "He feels that everybody made money off it and he didn't," the photographer said. "I think he deserves something. But it's always the record labels that make the money."

It really wouldn't be the end of the world for BMG (or whoever manages the Nirvana catalog these days) to admit that the original deal ($200 to some folks to put their baby on an album cover for some dudes who may open for Sonic Youth someday) is very different than the result ($200 the kid himself never saw and this photo on a multi-diamond selling album is a defining thing for all of his days). They could do something for him.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 10:05 AM on August 27, 2021 [18 favorites]

The parents are the ones who consented to this, since the baby was unable to. It may not be a perfect system, but I’m fine with that. If you could claim the right to not consent after the fact, then presumably any minor in any media could do that. This would be completely untenable. Movies could only have adults in them.
posted by snofoam at 10:06 AM on August 27, 2021 [4 favorites]

I 100% believe this kid (or anyone) has the right to revoke consent.

I'd agree, maybe, that the use of this photo going forward in future pressings can be revoked. It's use in the past, however, seems entirely appropriate.
posted by SPrintF at 10:06 AM on August 27, 2021 [5 favorites]

So, if this suit goes through, how does that interact with what's going on with Apple & the broader climate around "there is no legal way to possess of child pornography"?
Because I'm pretty sure as it stands just linking to the FPP article would end up being itself a felony.
posted by CrystalDave at 10:08 AM on August 27, 2021 [2 favorites]

I remember when the record came out I thought it was healthy that we could have a naked baby and not have everyone freak about about it.

He has a right to change his mind about this, but he should sue his parents.
posted by acrasis at 10:10 AM on August 27, 2021 [21 favorites]

So, if this suit goes through, how does that interact with what's going on with Apple & the broader climate around "there is no legal way to possess of child pornography"?

It's a civil suit, not a criminal charge. Criminal law on this matter, at least in the US, is pretty clear that the photo and its use was not a crime.
posted by tclark at 10:13 AM on August 27, 2021 [2 favorites]

Surprised by the level of hostility in this thread. While I don't (personally) find the Nevermind photo to be particularly sexualized, it seems obvious to me how someone could grow to feel sexually violated by the widespread commercial use of any non-consensual naked photo of themselves.
posted by dusty potato at 10:14 AM on August 27, 2021 [13 favorites]

I really hate the idea that money lies at the heart of so much stuff we'd like to just appreciate and enjoy, and I hate even more that any nudity (of any age) can be twisted into 'pornography' or exploitation. There will always be outliers, but is it too late to live in a world where a naked baby is not pornographic or exploitative? To what extent are we letting the worst elements drive our cultural values? Lawyers and perverts, and that is how the world works? It's gross.

Whatever happens I hope this guy finds a good life. I am not convinced that the energy he is exerting is leading to that outcome.
posted by elkevelvet at 10:15 AM on August 27, 2021 [14 favorites]

Win or lose the case, an overall self-inflicted loss. He goes from "guy with a cool bit of personal trivia: he was on the cover of the Nirvana album" to "the loser who sued over being on the cover of the Nirvana album".
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 10:18 AM on August 27, 2021 [5 favorites]

Heres the actual complaint, He’s demanding $150,000 from each band member because that’s the amount the applicable statute allows as liquidated damages.
A model release is almost always required for advertising and this image was occasionally used for advertising posters.
The primary basis of the suit is the allegation of child pornography, presumably in the unlikely event he wins this case, they would then have to change the cover for all future sales.

I think the pornography angle is only being raised because otherwise this would be outside the 3 year statute of limitations for a personal injury tort.
posted by Lanark at 10:25 AM on August 27, 2021 [14 favorites]

Here we are now, litigate us.
posted by kirkaracha at 10:36 AM on August 27, 2021 [75 favorites]

I think Kurt would appreciate the absurdity of this turn of events.
posted by a complicated history at 10:38 AM on August 27, 2021 [6 favorites]

What he should really be suing over is the psychological distress of having to live his entire life knowing he peaked at four months old.
posted by Parasite Unseen at 10:38 AM on August 27, 2021 [18 favorites]

I saw him on tv, little snippets of an interview as he couldn't seem to say a whole sentence, and he kept referring to his "baby penis." It seemed ... intensely awkward.
posted by chavenet at 10:39 AM on August 27, 2021 [2 favorites]

Chad Channing is a 54-year old lifetime indie musician who hasn't released an album since 20 13, and he's most likely over here like 'dude, I don't even have $150,000.'
posted by box at 11:04 AM on August 27, 2021 [10 favorites]

I feel pretty badly for the guy, he's obviously not happy with how his life is turning out, and I can easily imagine him feeling like the whole album thing defines his life but never made it better. If he's bitter about it now, this was probably his only viable strategy to get around statute of limitation issues. But that aspect of it makes the whole thing so much more sordid, and it still seems very unlikely to get much out of it, I hope he won't eventually regret the lawsuit and all the negative attention it's bringing him.
posted by skewed at 11:10 AM on August 27, 2021 [2 favorites]

Chad Channing is probably frustrated to get sued since he wasn't even still in the band when the photo shoot happened.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 11:18 AM on August 27, 2021 [11 favorites]

If he was suing to have the cover changed for future releases, I'd actually be on his side though probably the law wouldn't be. It'd definitely be pretty weird to have your naked baby pics on a huge cultural item, when you had no ability to consent at all, not even on the level of little kids who might have been enthusiastic about a photo shoot and then eventually feel different as adults. He couldn't even *form* consent.

But the fact is, he's not suing the people that actually made the decision for him, his parents, and suing people who weren't even involved, plus he's trying to throw in child porn to get a little more jazz going. So yeah, money grab.
posted by tavella at 11:26 AM on August 27, 2021 [15 favorites]

Any word from the Blind Faith girl? Or the Led Zeppelin kids?
posted by Splunge at 11:30 AM on August 27, 2021 [15 favorites]

This article from around when he turned 25 is interesting, but it doesn't exactly clear things up as it both: 1) makes clear he really may be sincerely uncomfortable with having his penis on an iconic album cover; and 2) has consistently felt cheated monetarily and has, for years, tried to find a route for a lawsuit. The one new detail in this piece that isn't in others already linked here is that he also feels personally slighted that he has never had any interactions with Dave Grohl or Kris Novoselic.

So I mean, it kinda does bother him, but if they paid him more and let him hang out with them, that would be fine?
posted by DirtyOldTown at 11:35 AM on August 27, 2021 [9 favorites]

Weird Transparent Angel Lady from “In Utero” Cover Also Announces Lawsuit
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 11:36 AM on August 27, 2021 [15 favorites]

This has been rolling around in the back of my mind for a few days now, since the first time I saw the news about this suit.

I agree with the folks who say that it's valid for someone to realize well after the fact that something wasn't OK even if they embraced it in their teens and 20s. I was well into my 30s and 40s when I started to realize that "funny" stories about my childhood/family were legit not right when viewed through the lens of a person who grew up in a "healthy" family dynamic.

And if this spells the end of using pictures or video of naked minors because they cannot consent, I'm for that as well. I don't know how I'd feel if I was the naked kid on a famous album cover, but I can't imagine I'd like it.

It does have the appearance of a cash grab, especially suing somebody who'd left the band before the album was released and presumably had nothing to do with the art selection, though. And if the band is to blame, the parents are as well. More than anyone, IMO, the label is to blame and should bear the brunt of the damages. They were the gatekeeper here and could have nixed the cover. They also have profited the most off the album, most likely.
posted by jzb at 11:42 AM on August 27, 2021 [12 favorites]

Not pointing fingers in here, but I'm really disappointed in some of the responses. Is it because penises are inherently funny? Dude's likely been dealing with questions, comments and jokes about this for much of his adult life and likely been uncomfortable the whole time. I can't blame him for trying to "be a good sport" and "take it like a man" in the way society expects him to be. He has every right to change his mind and seek damages from the people (excluding the guy that had already left the band, lol) making money off his nude image.
posted by Hutch at 11:46 AM on August 27, 2021 [10 favorites]

I read about it here and there’s this interesting bit from a previous interview:

In a 2016 interview with GQ Australia, Elden said his stance on the photograph changed after he reached out to Nirvana to see if the band would participate in an art show he was putting on. “I was asking if they wanted to put a piece of art in the fucking thing,” he said. “I was getting referred to their managers and their lawyers. Why am I still on their cover if I’m not that big of a deal?”

Elden discussed the negative aspects of the notoriety, too. When asked if the cover affected his relationships, he said, “Totally. Everyone thinks you’re making money from it.”

“You’ll hook up with a hot chick, and then they figure out you’re not making any money from it and they’ll dump you,” he went on. “You have these people who think you’re cool because you’re the Nirvana baby. But it’s fucking weird, man. It’s like that dream where you go to school without your clothes on.”

posted by bitteschoen at 11:55 AM on August 27, 2021 [4 favorites]

Album cover art is "art" by it's definition right? So doesn't that essentially negate the argument that it's pornographic? Intent is very relevant and no one is asserting that it was intended to be anything but "art". As it's a civil suit I can't really see how this goes forward....my guess is that it'll be thrown out by the judge.

Let's not forget that the 30th anniversary of the albums release is a very convenient time to make a bunch of noise about this.

*personal aside - if he's unhappy with the way his life is going at 30: "Welcome to the fucking club, bud."
posted by djseafood at 11:57 AM on August 27, 2021 [7 favorites]

I've been hoping someone would write a more nuanced article about this, but I haven't seen one yet. The whole thing reminds of the hot coffee story - where a person who actually had a reasonable complaint was completely misrepresented in the media and became the butt of a million jokes. I don't know if this complaint is reasonable or not - but it's an awfully easy way for a lot of people to generate some cheap outrage.

It's easy to criticize someone for a cash grab, but I can understand the temptation when so much cash is involved. This article from 2014 estimates the value of Kurt Cobain's estate at $450 million. I can see someone who's financially struggling and made at least some contribution to that estate wanting to get something back. The specifics of the case (deciding to call it child porn) were surely thought up by lawyers.

I'm not arguing for or against the merits of the case or whether this guy is or is not psychologically damaged. Just saying that I can envision circumstances where a "cash grab" doesn't seem like an unreasonable response to some people becoming very, very rich and that wealth having some connection to an individual's image. It's not like everyone else involved was living in poverty in order to serve art.
posted by FencingGal at 11:57 AM on August 27, 2021 [17 favorites]

May I add that I'm really sick of people saying "it's a money grab" as if that were some kind of gotcha, or even an insightful observation? Of course it's a money grab! You know, money? That stuff that every human has to get from somewhere, especially in the United States, if they don't want to die of starvation in the streets? Whenever Jeff Bezos or Elon Musk announces some new terror that will put billions into their pockets, do we shake our heads dismissively and say "it's just a money grab"? Since we can't travel back in time, and we can't erase the memory of everyone who's seen the album cover, what else is Elden supposed to ask for to make his life easier besides money?
posted by Faint of Butt at 12:00 PM on August 27, 2021 [26 favorites]

I wonder if he'd have had a different experience reaching out to Grohl & Novoselic if first he'd done so as the moderately thoughtful 25 y/o street artist in that Time article and not as the boorish high school/college aged person he was when he inserted himself into the culture. It's not hard to guess why the members of a band that didn't abide sexism or commercialism weren't that into the kid when he was all "Who wants to see my penis?" and "I get paid cash just for showing up!"

I am becoming legitimately convinced he is upset and hurt, but if it's primarily for not getting the wealth or hobnobbing that comes with fame, that's not a great reason for a lawsuit, is it?
posted by DirtyOldTown at 12:03 PM on August 27, 2021 [7 favorites]

Whatever the merits of the case, I guess I don't get the idea that the band is "making money" from his image. Does anyone buy albums based on the cover art?
posted by maxwelton at 12:03 PM on August 27, 2021 [8 favorites]

The whole thing reminds of the hot coffee story - where a person who actually had a reasonable complaint was completely misrepresented in the media and became the butt of a million jokes.

Dude used the photo as a pickup line, as an adult.
posted by kirkaracha at 12:04 PM on August 27, 2021 [2 favorites]

No way. No way no way. There's nothing sexual about the image on the cover whatsoever and it sucks that this guy has so little else going on in his life that's he's adding fuel to a horrible bit of extremely conservative cultural backlash against artistic expression that is fucking everywhere in the culture right now.
posted by subdee at 12:06 PM on August 27, 2021 [20 favorites]

Pay him off, release a new super-deluxe-whatever edition with new cover art that has the baby and the dollar edited out
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 12:07 PM on August 27, 2021 [1 favorite]

Don't pay this guy off, laugh his argument out of court. He might be suffering but it doesn't give him the right to go around demanding damages from people who aren't obligated to hang out with him.
posted by subdee at 12:09 PM on August 27, 2021 [7 favorites]

If somebody took sexually exploitative pictures of a baby, they should be going to jail, not paying a fine. Naked pictures of babies surely aren't inherently sexual, and the Nevermind cover certainly doesn't seem to be.

If you were vaccinated as a baby, you didn't consent to it; your parents did. Should anti-vax people be able to sue the doctors who vaccinated them as children because they believe they were harmed, and they themselves didn't consent to it?

It is possible to be mad about a thing, even understandably mad about a thing, and still not deserve to receive hundreds of thousands of dollars because of it.
posted by Sing Or Swim at 12:09 PM on August 27, 2021 [61 favorites]

FoB, "making a money grab" as it has been used here it is not at all interchangeable with "seeking compensation for wrongdoing." The term is being used to differentiate making a specious claim as a kind of extortion.

Whether you agree with the assessment or not, there's no reason to miss that semantic distinction.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 12:10 PM on August 27, 2021 [13 favorites]

Like really, do we want to live in a society where everyone who feels harmed - which is a lot of people - can use that as the basis of a lawsuit against whichever target they decide is the best outlet for their frustrations?
posted by subdee at 12:11 PM on August 27, 2021 [4 favorites]

If I had to grow up knowing everyone in the world had already seen my genitals you better believe I'd be sueing everyone in sight. Everyone. I'd sue this whole website. I would not care.
posted by bleep at 12:12 PM on August 27, 2021 [8 favorites]

Any word from the Blind Faith girl?

Yes, here's an interview with her from 2011.

Mariora Goschen, now 50 and still with striking curly hair, recalls that she was coerced into posing for the picture. “My sister said, ‘We’ll give you a young horse. Do it!’"

Or the Led Zeppelin kids?

Yup, here's an article with comments from them both:

Sam told the Daily Mail in 2007 that she recalled the photo shoot “really clearly, mainly because it was freezing cold and rained the whole time. We were naked in a lot of the modelling shoots we did- nothing was thought of it back then. You probably couldn’t get away with that now.”

posted by automatronic at 12:12 PM on August 27, 2021 [12 favorites]

He is, of course, free to feel any way he wishes about it. I don't believe that he's entitled to sue the band for $600K because of it, in no small part because the bulk of his notoriety seems to have come from his choice to publicize it as an adult for attention and the occasional hook-up.
posted by Halloween Jack at 12:19 PM on August 27, 2021 [5 favorites]

Has anybody asked Courtney what she thinks about this? It's reassuring to me to know that we have that response to look forward to.
posted by dubwisened at 12:26 PM on August 27, 2021 [6 favorites]

I guess I don't get the idea that the band is "making money" from his image. Does anyone buy albums based on the cover art?

Yes, absolutely.

And actually, reading the whole article, I think it's much more nuanced. The family was paid 200$ for a photo shoot at the pool. The family did not release permission or have a written contract of release for the photo to be used, and weren't even informed of which picture would be used until three months after it was done. It was absolutely exploitive - give a family some money to take some pictures, and then put their baby's full nudity on an album cover.

And I think we're realizing now that we were wrong in the 80s and 90s to take so many nude photos of kids. We all have them, but it's always been awkward and squirmy and uncomfortable. It's so uncomfortable that it's a "funny joke", how people's parents would show your dates nude pictures of you as a baby or young child when they came over.

It's reasonable to have weird feelings, and it's also common for people to not realize they've been sexually exploited until later in life. See: teenagers in statutory rape cases.
posted by corb at 12:29 PM on August 27, 2021 [13 favorites]

Any word from the Blind Faith girl?

I didn't know what this meant, so I googled, got the Wikipedia article, and was just knocked out by the phrasing: "The cover was considered controversial, with some seeing the silver aircraft as potentially phallic."

So maybe it should be the maker of the airplane who brings the lawsuit, not the woman, since that's the much bigger deal.

[huge eye-roll]
posted by dlugoczaj at 12:35 PM on August 27, 2021

We all have them, but it's always been awkward and squirmy and uncomfortable.

Disagree with this statement.
posted by subdee at 12:36 PM on August 27, 2021 [5 favorites]

Let's not make things sexual that are not, and were never intended to be, sexual. Let's not let the culture make natural things uncomfortable.
posted by subdee at 12:38 PM on August 27, 2021 [21 favorites]

Does anyone buy albums based on the cover art?

From automatronic’s link about the kids on Houses of the Holy:
In my teens I was a big fan of Led Zeppelin and the proud owner of their 1973 album Houses of the Holy. Many of my Led Zep albums were on cassette, recorded for me by friends at school, but I had purchased this particular LP, not least, I think, because I found the cover so intriguing and compelling.

I spent many an hour listening to the record in my bedroom, although I’ll confess that I never fully got on with it. I wasn’t ready for the funk of The crunge or some of the jazz influenced vocals. Led Zeppelin had a solid blues and rock background and this is what I understood at this age and wanted. Houses of the holy didn’t have the rock riffs of songs like Communication breakdown or Trampled underfoot, nor did it have the lovely tunes of Stairway to heaven. In truth, the best thing about the album was that artwork; it fascinated me inexplicably – and I still admire it today.
posted by TedW at 12:39 PM on August 27, 2021

I'm all fucked up now, as I believe he is insincerely appropriating the language of sexual abuse survivors for what is essentially extortion, BUT I also think it would be the easiest thing in the world for these entities to give the kid enough money to say, go back to school or buy a modest home, and toss him some concert tickets now and again. His life is sad, his original ask (help my art show! could we meet?) was small and it seems sad things got this far.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 12:42 PM on August 27, 2021 [27 favorites]

Does anyone buy albums based on the cover art?

No, but I’m a Belle and Sebastian fan.

Babies in a bath, normal record of daily life, I can totally understand why parents might want to save the little moments like that. What is squirmy and uncomfortable is babies in decorative gourds. That doesn’t need to happen.
posted by betweenthebars at 12:45 PM on August 27, 2021 [10 favorites]

1) Maybe he's entitled to compensation for the use of his likeness, maybe not. That's strictly a legal question, right? Should be easy enough to resolve.

2) How a person has dealt with what they now claim as trauma is irrelevant. We make allowances all the time for people who've been sexually assaulted (etc.) to act out in ways that seem counter-productive, but are coping mechanisms, or themselves products of trauma. But if he can prove that he's been traumatized by this image through the intentional or negligent actions of the band, fine. Sue away. It's a separate issue from #1 though.

3) In my personal view, calling this "pornography" is insane, even if it is just a hail-Mary to extend some statute of limitations. The panic around the sexualization of any naked infant is eerily reminiscent of satanic panic.
posted by klanawa at 12:47 PM on August 27, 2021 [15 favorites]

Next up Sebadoh "bake sale" cover kid sues Jay Mascis for damages
posted by djseafood at 12:47 PM on August 27, 2021 [2 favorites]

Next up Sebadoh "bake sale" cover kid sues Jay Mascis

Hasn't Lou Barlow done this already

is that the joke
posted by pxe2000 at 12:49 PM on August 27, 2021 [4 favorites]

And I think we're realizing now that we were wrong in the 80s and 90s to take so many nude photos of kids

You, uh, what sort of Helen Lovejoy madness is this?
posted by ominous_paws at 12:52 PM on August 27, 2021 [8 favorites]

I’m surprised to see several comments claiming that he uses this situation as a pick-up line. I do think it’s a potential reading of that interview but far from the only one, or even the most plausible one. The line “do you want to see it?” is in the context of questions about whether his penis is the same size now as it was then; I interpret his retort as an attempt to use humor to get people off his back, or to make them realize that asking him questions about his penis is inappropriate and unwarranted.
posted by chaiyai at 12:52 PM on August 27, 2021 [3 favorites]

Would everyone saying this is just fine be so sanguine if it was your likeness, and your private parts? Knowing that his parents weren't informed of the stakes of what they were agreeing to?
posted by bleep at 12:52 PM on August 27, 2021 [4 favorites]

So as not to abuse the edit window, here’s the full quote. I really don’t see how this comes off as a pickup line in context (it’s specifically a response to people “poking fun”):

“They usually poke fun at me asking me, ‘Is it the same size?’”

“I always say, “It’s changed, do you want to see it?’”
posted by chaiyai at 12:56 PM on August 27, 2021

Would everyone saying this is just fine be so sanguine if it was your likeness, and your private parts?

Yes, I would. Because it's a photo of a naked baby and I'm not a baby anymore.
posted by Pendragon at 12:56 PM on August 27, 2021 [44 favorites]

The line “do you want to see it?” is in the context of questions about whether his penis is the same size now as it was then; I interpret his retort as an attempt to use humor to get people off his back, or to make them realize that asking him questions about his penis is inappropriate and unwarranted.

But how would anyone know that it was him in the picture unless he brought it up first? If anyone is "poking fun" at him, it's because he would have had to mention it. He's not recognizable as the infant in the photograph, and he's not notorious enough (until now?) that people would approach him with that knowledge.
posted by knotty knots at 1:00 PM on August 27, 2021 [10 favorites]

Knowing that his parents weren't ~~informed of the stakes of what they were agreeing to~~ able to see into the future?

Think of all the things your parents fucked up in your upbringing because they didn't know any better. Now imagine if those things were actionable.
posted by klanawa at 1:02 PM on August 27, 2021 [11 favorites]

Maybe if a few of them were actionable, future generations of adults would think twice before inflicting them on future generations of children? Maybe this is part of how we stop "not knowing any better."
posted by The Underpants Monster at 1:10 PM on August 27, 2021 [6 favorites]

If the band want to help him out of the goodness of their hearts, because they profited off his image and he never saw any of that money, that would be a very nice thing for them to do. But this lawsuit ain't it. The moral panic over depictions of children and babies in non sexual situations and equating it to sexually explicit materials is not it. There's an actual moral panic going on, right now, in the US, centered around made-up cases of child predators and ignoring the real ones. This isn't the legal precedent we want.
posted by subdee at 1:13 PM on August 27, 2021 [20 favorites]

I think it’s unfortunate that he (or his lawyer) bundled together strong claims with weaker ones.

I dont believe that the image is pornographic and i would be pretty alarmed if the courts said otherwise.

His mental suffering may be very real, but it’s unclear to me why the band is culpable or how you would establish a standard for culpability.

I *absolutely* think private citizens should have a reasonable right to control the use of their own image, even if contract law doest support that right at this time. Maybe that means the right to issue a cease and desist for any images taken when they were a minor. Maybe that means rights should expire and have to be renegotiated after a specified term.

It’s interesting that this is happening concurrently with the OnlyFans and PornHub shake-ups. It’s likely that Web 3.0/NFTs/a bunch of other stuff i dont understand is about to seriously shake up contract law. A lot of good may potentially come of this, with individuals having more control over their own likeness, but lots of shady lawyers are gonna bill a lot of hours before we get wherever it is we’re going.
posted by ducky l'orange at 1:20 PM on August 27, 2021 [12 favorites]

Here's an interview at Variety with the attorney.

I continue to find the repetition of "they activated his gag reflex" to be gross, and intended to evoke pornography. First because "they" seems to include his mom, who is again, not part of the lawsuit, and also is/was a lifeguard. And, as anyone who has ever tried to teach a baby to swim knows, you activate their gag reflex so they don't gulp in water and drown. It's not unseemly, it's basic safety. Don't take my word for it. Look it up yourself.

His description of the shoot, while not technically fabricating anything, also tries hard to make it sound like Spencer endured a great deal so they could get their shot of his penis, when what the Aldens said was that the shoot was between 5-15 seconds long. Make baby gulp in air, gently drop baby. Repeat. Done.

This is the best part, though:

I think that before this album was released, Nirvana was a very unknown grunge band. And this was a part of a scheme that was designed to sell records, and it was something that they did as a marketing tactic. So it is the exploitation of child pornography, and they knew it when they did it in the first place. That’s why it resulted in so many of these albums being sold.

Ah yes, the famously fame-hungry Nirvana and their constant focus on commercial marketing. Good thing they did this, too, as "it resulted in so many albums sold." Yep, that was what sold them.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 1:29 PM on August 27, 2021 [26 favorites]

Not comparable, but a picture of me and my mom riding the whirl-a-gig ride at the local county fair was used in full page advertisements for the fair for 15 years. I was about two years old, no one asked for permission to use the photo.

...

On a more serious note, legally parents need to give permission for photos of their children to be used for even non-commercial reasons. If you run an after school club, like I do, there's a permission form the parents are supposed to sign if you want to use photos of (for example) club events on the school website. But this is becoming really impossible to enforce and in a way, outdated. Because now the school has a Facebook page and a Twitter page and etc and you know they didn't get permission from every parent for every photo of a school event that shows up there.

The issue of parents *profiting* from photos of their kids and the issue of being able to remove your own photos from the public internet, I absolutely believe will become a real issue. With AI photo recognition getting better it might even become technically possible to enforce a ban and remove images that have been widely distributed.
posted by subdee at 1:31 PM on August 27, 2021 [3 favorites]

I don't know how to reconcile "I was sexually exploited" with "I use that experience as a pickup line" exactly but something doesn't line up there.

Here's a totally fictionalized possibility: Now I feel that I was exploited—but when I was younger all the people around me convinced me that it was actually a positive thing. When I met new people, mentioning it always got a positive reaction, and like anyone, I wanted to be liked and make friends. It was an easy way to get people to be interested in me and pay attention to me, and when I spun it the right way, presented it as something funny, it made me seem fun and cool. But it never really felt right. I was nervous about it even when I pretended it was no big deal. I had a lot of ambivalent feelings about it, but nobody wanted to hear about the negative side of things—it was a buzzkill, or they thought I was ungrateful for the money and fame that they assumed it brought me. Once I started talking about it, media people wanted to interview me, and it was really hard to figure out what to say when there's a mike in front of my face. As a young person, you want the interviewer to think you're cool, to write an article that makes you look good. But I sometimes blurted out the wrong thing, said too much. As I explored my sexuality, I tried different ways of thinking and talking about it, including using it as a joke and a pickup line. I felt the pressure a lot of men feel to score and sleep with a lot of women and brag about it, and it did make girls interested in me. But all along I was struggling to make sense of what it meant to me. In the end, I decided that I don't feel good about it at all, but now I'm stuck with this and I can't make the world stop knowing it about me.

I don't know if the lawsuit is fair, but I do feel for the guy.
posted by BrashTech at 1:35 PM on August 27, 2021 [20 favorites]

This individual was exploited. It was also not child pornography. It appears to be someone doing something harmful to mitigate or help heal something that was apparently harmful to them. Parents have a legal right to sell the likeness of their children. Parents do not have a moral right to sell the likeness of their children. If this person wants their likeness off a capitalist consumer product they should be allowed to, morally speaking. They're not allowed to, legally speaking.

As far as the line of he's creating this issue because "he would have to bring it up otherwise no one would know": Y'all ever been traumatized and processed your trauma? If Spencer was traumatized by this event and/or the events following, every time they see this cover it's a reminder of that/those traumatizing experience(s). It seems fairly evident to me, a person that has experienced trauma and also processed trauma, that one would want to feel some sense of agency in regard to the imagery and thus have something to say about it before it says something about them. If you look at this and think (and say in a public forum) "this is a silly thing to be upset about," maybe reflect upon the subjectivity of your experience and recognize it is not universal, and your insistence to the contrary may in and of itself be harmful.
posted by CPAnarchist at 1:38 PM on August 27, 2021 [5 favorites]

I mean if there was an entire generation of people who this was happening to at the same time, which there actually isn't, then my actual childhood experiences would be relevant. But actually nothing like this has ever happened to me or anyone reading this thread.

I don't understand your point. People have opinions and we live in a time where it's nothing easier than to voice your opinion.. I'm not sure that is a good thing, but your presence in MeFi suggests you too engage in this on occasion? Also, a bunch of things may be valid at one time.. perhaps the guy should get some money out of this? Perhaps we can do a better job of avoiding naked babies on album covers? I can tell you, this was not the prevalent question at the time: "The naked baby on the cover is deplorable, surely this will result in a civil suit." Life moves us along, and here we are.
posted by elkevelvet at 1:39 PM on August 27, 2021

I think there are many of us who would, were it possible, sue our younger selves.
posted by pipeski at 1:47 PM on August 27, 2021 [14 favorites]

There's nothing wrong with sharing your opinions of course. But judging someone and saying they're taking the wrong step in trying to right a wrong that happened to them that I haven't personally experienced, who am I to say that they're wrong? I would just like to push back on the idea that someone can be judged as morally wrong for trying to make something right.
posted by bleep at 1:48 PM on August 27, 2021 [2 favorites]

People are complicated, and so it's possible that Spencer is both a traumatized victim of events in his past *and* a money-grabbing so-and-so. I'm glad that no one is forcing me to pick between the two.
posted by Slothrup at 1:48 PM on August 27, 2021 [3 favorites]

The Beatles had the right idea - only use dead babies on the cover. (tw for decapitated baby dolls and moptops)
posted by thatwhichfalls at 1:54 PM on August 27, 2021 [2 favorites]

For those who see this as exploitative, what is the proposed remedy? Should photographers be banned from taking photos of children? Should commercial use of photos of children be prohibited? Should people using photos of children in a commercial endeavor be required to place some of their earnings in a trust that becomes accessible to the children when they become adults? Or...?
posted by ElKevbo at 2:02 PM on August 27, 2021 [2 favorites]

If you're going to put a kid's likeness on an album, there should be a contract which states the ways in which it's going to be used and appropriate royalties. Not some $200 check. For one thing.
For another thing kids' private parts should be off limits for something that's going to be sold commercially. I can't believe that even needs to be said.
posted by bleep at 2:06 PM on August 27, 2021 [7 favorites]

Nirvana's previous record had sold 40,000 copies. The band couldn't afford to license stock photos because they were nobodies with a small budget. They hired a photographer who asked his friends if he could photograph their baby. He gave them $200 for a fifteen second photo shoot, they shook hands and that was it. This is all very reasonable if no one expects the record to be a very big deal.

It's sort of weird to expect them to have planned for what would happen if they sold ten million copies when, until they broke through, alternative radio barely existed. The entire thing about Nirvana is that no one saw them coming, not their label, not even them.

I still think the band and the label could stand to revisit things, given how it all turned out. But the situation is less Corporation Consciously Exploits Child and more Broke Seattle Weirdos Doing It for Themselves.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 2:11 PM on August 27, 2021 [47 favorites]

1) Maybe he's entitled to compensation for the use of his likeness, maybe not. That's strictly a legal question, right? Should be easy enough to resolve.

And yeah, that part of it is fine. I'm going to be surprised if a company like Sony didn't check for a model release, if this was a commissioned piece rather than stock, but if they fucked up then sure, the photographer and the company should be on the hook for whatever damages are usual for past use in that case, or having to negotiate a new license for future releases if all past ones are beyond the statute of limitations. Or denying future use if that is his main concern.

The slapping of the lurid child porn accusations does not give me confidence that their assertions of no release is accurate, however, because that's not the sort of stuff you go to if you have a good legal case.
posted by tavella at 2:13 PM on August 27, 2021 [3 favorites]

"kids' private parts" they're genitals. Specifically, a penis. That baby had one, boys and men have penises, I am not sure that this is an objectionable fact that requires euphemistic phrasing. You raise valid points but some of the discussion truly seems to fall into hysteria about how a naked child is always and already exploitative and/or pornographic. A lot of things need to be said, the alternative is to make assumptions. Clearly not all people see things the way you see them.
posted by elkevelvet at 2:15 PM on August 27, 2021 [5 favorites]

I said private parts because it doesn't matter if it's a penis or a vulva or any combination therein. Your penis and your vagina belong to you until you see fit to give them to someone else. It doesn't work any other way.
posted by bleep at 2:20 PM on August 27, 2021 [2 favorites]

Sorry I wasn't in school on the day they said everyones' genital organs are public property until you're 18.
posted by bleep at 2:20 PM on August 27, 2021 [5 favorites]

So there are things that can be super harmful to kids, and violating of their privacy and their later sexual development, without being pornographic or intended to arouse prurient interest.

I have to go through a lot of old medical journals for my work. Most of the images in them, even though they were taken during a time with differing standards of medical privacy, were intended to further medical knowledge. Occasionally, prurient interest comes in (those are usually ads); often, images are used to reinforce racial and social hierarchies.

There are a lot of case studies of kids going through precocious puberty. The children’s faces are generally blurred. There is a legitimate medical interest reason to print their nude images. No one is making money; few are making careers entirely off this, though the researchers gain prestige. I particularly remember one case study of a girl saying “She went through precocious puberty and began to hate doctors. She refused to allow her father to photograph her in the nude for research, although her father was a gynecologist.” And we know that many people have experienced further trauma from situations like this even when no one is obtaining sexual or sadistic or even aesthetic pleasure from this.
posted by Hypatia at 2:32 PM on August 27, 2021 [13 favorites]

As this thread demonstrates, the whole child porn angle is a red herring that Elden's lawyer should have omitted from the lawsuit. If he had, the case would just be about: (a) Did his parents give full knowing consent? (they did not; they signed nothing), and: (b) Is Elden now entitled to additional compensation for the role that his image played in making the album such a success? And (c), if so, how much?

There is an interesting legal precedent for considering these questions: the efforts, during the 1980s and 90s, by Washington D.C. lawyer Howell E. Begle to secure compensation for 50s-era Black R&B artists who were exploited by record companies through various maneuvers. Those artists actually signed contracts but won compensation.
posted by beagle at 2:32 PM on August 27, 2021 [5 favorites]

I would just like to push back on the idea that someone can be judged as morally wrong for trying to make something right.

That seems to beg the question. If you don't believe that it's always wrong to publish images of children, and/or don't believe that it is a productive to sexualise infant nudity, then you probably won't believe that he is trying to make something right. The fact that someone feels wronged doesn't necessarily mean that they have been wronged.

My school class was on a children's TV programme when I was about 7, and a snippet of me answering a question from the host was included in the edit. I remember seeing it, and it being excruciatingly embarassing. I still feel a bit cringey about it now. I certainly couldn't give any sort of consent: all our parents did that for us in notes to the school. But I find it hard to convince myself I'd be righting a wrong if I issued a claim against the BBC. And I'm clearly identifiable as the same person, and so have no control over being associated with that broadcast, if someone comes across it on whatever weird YouTube channel it's probably lurking on. I'm not sure that an infant who once appeared as a model in an advert for, the Red Cross, say, should be able to sue the organisation thirty years later.

So is the difference between that and this the nudity issue? I think that's probably what it comes down to for most people who see this as righting a wrong. But, firstly, I don't believe that it's reasonable to claim that this is pornography. The purpose of porn is to sexually arouse the viewer. That is not what this image was intended to do. So I guess it has to come down to the idea that nudity, per se, is somehow a special state, and that there is inherent violation in being seen naked. So... should parents avert their eyes when their children play in the nude? Avoid all but essential glances down when changing and at bathtime? Not cuddle babies unless they're safely swaddled? Those babies can't consent to that intrusion on their privacy. And there's certainly a point at which it does become inappropriate for parents to cuddle their naked children, so it doesn't seem it's the fact of being a parent that makes the difference. Are we really sure that treating infant nudity as equivalent to nudity at later stages of life is the best course for our culture?

Also, I don't think that tort law is a good mechanism for cultural and political change, particularly in this retroactive and damages-focused manner. The courts are meant to be arbiters of standards that have been democratically agreed, not mechanisms for changing those standards on an ad hoc basis. The unusual significance of damages in tort in the US is, primarily, a stopgap measure in response to generations of governmental failures to protect the rights of individuals against the power of wealth. It's understandable, but that doesn't mean it's a good thing. Ceding control of a society to the judiciary is, as most here will appreciate, a very dangerous path.
posted by howfar at 2:35 PM on August 27, 2021 [17 favorites]

So... should parents avert their eyes when their children play in the nude?

This is a strawman. We're not talking about parents and children in the privacy of their home. Obviously parents see their kids nude when they change their diapers. We're not talking about a child suing their parent for changing their diapers. We're talking about someone whose nude body was published worldwide without their consent. I don't know what's so hard to grasp about this.
posted by bleep at 2:46 PM on August 27, 2021 [4 favorites]

He’s demanding $150,000 from each band member because that’s the amount the applicable statute allows as liquidated damages.

*throws 450,000 dollar bills in swimming pool, gets movie camera ready"

"Ok, kid, have at it. This time, leave on the trunks if you like."

----

“You’ll hook up with a hot chick, and then they figure out you’re not making any money from it and they’ll dump you,” he went on.

it couldn't possibly be that you see them as a "hot chick", right?

---

the solution is obvious - make a cover with a drawing that shows a swimming dollar bill trying to grab a baby on a fishhook

my serious statement? give him a settlement of the money he's asked for on condition that he signs a NDA that prohibits him from ever mentioning that he was the nirvana baby or being interviewed as such, change the cover to just the dollar bill on a fishhook

prediction - he won't last 10 years without violating the NDA and having to give the money back
posted by pyramid termite at 2:47 PM on August 27, 2021 [10 favorites]

So... should parents avert their eyes when their children play in the nude?

Assuming that kids “playing in the nude” is something that happens in all families, which it most certainly is not, I think equating parents seeing naked children in the privacy of their own home with mass media distribution of photos of naked children is a bit of a stretch.

I’m not disturbed by the fact that my mother saw my childhood naked body when necessary, but I would absolutely be disturbed if photographs of my childhood naked body were freely available for the world to look at whenever they felt like it. And that should be my choice. It doesn’t have to be porn to be something you should have the choice to keep private.
posted by The Underpants Monster at 2:54 PM on August 27, 2021 [8 favorites]

And furthermore I don't know that much about child pornography but I'm pretty sure nobody is sitting around scrutinizing which images are "porny enough" to be considered porn. If it's a naked child and the image has escaped the beloved childhood photo album then it's a problem. And I'm pretty sure all of you would agree if it was you and your loved ones and not some stranger who you already disapprove of.
posted by bleep at 3:02 PM on August 27, 2021 [1 favorite]

I'm not too bothered by other people evaluating this situation differently than I do, as it is genuinely complex culturally and legally speaking, but I am kind of surprised and troubled by the level of intensity and scorn with which some folks seem upset at the mere suggestion that children's bodies and likenesses-- nude or not!-- be removed from consideration as a source of profit / career attainment for someone else.
posted by dusty potato at 3:06 PM on August 27, 2021 [4 favorites]

I can understand why people don't have a problem with nude photos of children, but it seems to me to be pretty clear that regardless of whether or not the person involved is being duplicitous or not, there's almost certainly cases where there are nude pictures of children in the wild that those involved wouldn't want to be public.

To avoid situations like this in the future, it seems like the pragmatic choice is to not commercialize nude pictures of children, given that they're likely to cause regret, especially nowadays that everything is on the Internet.
posted by No One Ever Does at 3:25 PM on August 27, 2021 [3 favorites]

I’m not disturbed by the fact that my mother saw my childhood naked body when necessary, but I would absolutely be disturbed if photographs of my childhood naked body were freely available for the world to look at whenever they felt like it

I think that's a reasonable thing to feel. But it feels relevant to me that I wouldn't. I know that my mum's Facebook extensively digitised photo albums have exactly those sort of pictures of me, directly available to hundreds of people I've never met, and indirectly to everyone in the world, and I couldn't care less. On the other hand, there are published pictures and recordings of me as a fully clothed child that I'm fucking mortified about. So I think what I'm unsure about is the idea of nudity as a bright line.

I find it hard to see a justification for the position that being clothed reduces the level of control one should have over one's own image, which I think is what is implied by the idea that nudity is a unique state that, by definition, and without reference to personal and cultural context, is matter of ethically necessary public taboo. I'm fairly open to the argument that no images or recordings of minors should ever be published, but I'm sceptical about the idea that it's nudity that is the differentiating factor.

I'm pretty sure nobody is sitting around scrutinizing which images are "porny enough" to be considered porn

There are people working in justice systems and internet moderation all over the world who do this as a regular part of their jobs. Those jobs, quite understandably, have notoriously high burnout rates.
posted by howfar at 3:29 PM on August 27, 2021 [12 favorites]

When I worked at the agricultural college, part of my job was doing the paperwork for our school garden grant program. The paperwork the applicants had to sign stated, in big bold print, that they had to provide us with a certain number of pictures of their gardens. If the pictures included so much as an elbow of anyone under 18, there had to be a release signed by the minor’s parents specifically granting us the right to use that image in publicity materials. Invariably, the pictures would come back without the release forms. I would spend a week playing phone tag with the participating teachers, who would invariably say, “But all the parents sign a photo release at the beginning of the school year! You don’t need another one!” Yeah, they agreed to let your school use the photos. We couldn’t use them even if they’d only be seen on a poster at the FFA pavilion at a county fair. I double-checked with our legal office, and they said no way, no how, those pictures go in the shredder. At that point we couldn’t take the grant money back, so we were stuck. One year, we managed to track down the parents of the kid in THE perfect picture of a smiling six-year-old fully clothed and holding a pumpkin, so they were our poster kid for years.

I can’t believe we did a better job than Sony Records, down at the cow college.
posted by The Underpants Monster at 3:31 PM on August 27, 2021 [14 favorites]

I think that's a reasonable thing to feel. But it feels relevant to me that I wouldn't.

But that’s exactly why it should be our choice. You don’t know whether or not your - or your friends’ - kid is going to grow up to be OK with it. So it’s probably better not to take that choice away from them in advance.
posted by The Underpants Monster at 3:34 PM on August 27, 2021 [5 favorites]

I tend to agree, but the question I'm raising is whether it's the nudity that makes the difference about what control we should have.
posted by howfar at 3:36 PM on August 27, 2021 [1 favorite]

And if you do just go ahead and take that choice away from them, you have to accept that when you take something away from someone else, you have to pay for it one way or another. That's how our system works.
posted by bleep at 3:36 PM on August 27, 2021 [1 favorite]

I tend to agree, but the question I'm raising is whether it's the nudity that makes the difference about what control we should have.

OK, again I say, and then I will be out, I promise, if it was your nudity you would not be so theoretical about it.
posted by bleep at 3:38 PM on August 27, 2021

... except it doesn't? I mean, if you want to lobby for laws preventing the commercialization of such photos, you'd probably get a lot of support. But at the time, it was absolutely legal and therefore the record company et al. are not liable. You can't do this retroactively.
posted by tavella at 3:41 PM on August 27, 2021

(a) Did his parents give full knowing consent? (they did not; they signed nothing)

A 1992 article from Entertainment Weekly and an article about the process of creating the cover note the following:

-The parents were in the pool during the photo shoot
-They accepted $250 as payment
-Four or five different kids were photographed for the album cover, so their objections (if any) would have been accommodated
-Spencer's family had a platinum award for Nevermind hanging in their living room
-They had the album cover poster in Spencer's bedroom when he was a toddler
-They let the EW reporter into their house years after the fact to observe that stuff and didn't express any misgivings about the experience

Is there a legal issue here given nothing was signed? No idea. But if we're talking about consent outside of a legal context, it sounds like the parents were more than OK with the whole situation. The dad worked in the film industry, there's no way he wasn't cognizant of what it meant that a record company wanted to photograph his 4-month-old, and if the parents didn't even ask and just took the cash... that's entirely on them. If Spencer as an adult has issues with being the baby on the cover, fair enough. But he needs to take it up with his parents, not Nirvana.
posted by lefty lucky cat at 3:46 PM on August 27, 2021 [12 favorites]

The possible situations are:

1) The photographer did get a signed release, in which case he, Sony, et al acted entirely legally and the lawsuit is baseless.

2) The photographer didn't get a release and Sony didn't check, in which case they should be on the hook for past usage within the statute of limitations and should be blocked from using the image in the future, unless the subject chooses to license it.

The rest of the suit is noise and nonsense as far as I can tell. Now, I do have sympathy in the case of 1), and maybe we *should* change the laws so that people can revoke rights for photographs taken of them as minors. There is a sort of precedent in copyright law, where when it was extended yet again there was provision for creators regaining rights to works they made for companies. But it's likely to be very legally complicated; it's not a big deal for a band to change an album cover in future releases. But should every sitcom where the family toted around a child be blocked from re-airing if the actor later wishes it? Every movie with a child extra in the scene?
posted by tavella at 3:53 PM on August 27, 2021 [3 favorites]

Who wants to help round up plaintiffs for a class action against America’s Funniest Videos?
posted by lumpy at 4:04 PM on August 27, 2021 [3 favorites]

I tend to agree, but the question I'm raising is whether it's the nudity that makes the difference about what control we should have.

Yes, of course it’s the nudity. I have a right to choose who does and doesn’t see my naked body.
posted by The Underpants Monster at 4:12 PM on August 27, 2021 [2 favorites]

But is that a qualitatively different right to the kind of control you should have over who sees you in general?
posted by howfar at 4:24 PM on August 27, 2021 [1 favorite]

I find it hard to see a justification for the position that being clothed reduces the level of control one should have over one's own image

The relevant distinction being civil versus criminal here
posted by DeepSeaHaggis at 4:27 PM on August 27, 2021

Who wants to help round up plaintiffs for a class action against America’s Funniest Videos?

Honestly, America's Funniest Home Videos felt gross to me even when I was a kid.
posted by No One Ever Does at 4:31 PM on August 27, 2021 [16 favorites]

Who wants to help round up plaintiffs for a class action against America’s Funniest Videos?

The kid that was recorded sitting on the toilet while sobbing about how he was going to miss watching AFV because of diarrhea should be the first one in line. I don't understand how any adult thought that was okay.
posted by LouCPurr at 4:45 PM on August 27, 2021 [5 favorites]

"legally parents need to give permission for photos of their children to be used for even non-commercial reasons. If you run an after school club, like I do, there's a permission form the parents are supposed to sign if you want to use photos of (for example) club events on the school website."

This is absolutely 100% not true in US law. This is ass-covering by schools and clubs and so forth. ADMIRABLE ass-covering, because I think parents should get to make these decisions! But it's ass-covering. There is no special permission necessary to photograph children or publish photographs of children; US First Amendment law allows BROAD rights to photographers in public and semi-public places to publish whatever the heck they snap a photo of.

Similarly, most waivers that parents sign for their kids to participate in slightly-dangerous activities (trampoline parks, gymnastics) or to go on field trips are UTTER NONSENSE and COMPLETELY UNENFORCEABLE, because negligence is negligence and a parent can't generally agree that it's TOTES FINE to be negligent towards their children. Permission slips serve the salutary purpose of showing that "Yes, the parents knew the school was taking the children on a bus to the art museum where they might see some naked boobs in the Renaissance Art section," and let the school defend against claims that their children were transported without consent or exposed to things the parents objected to. But permission slips typically use language that disclaims negligence, but any agreement that "Parents cannot sue if their minor child gets lost at the art museum because their teacher was HIGH AS FUCK at work" is invalid as a matter of law. It's not a thing you can contract for, and it's not a right you can sign away. Negligence is negligence.

When I was 18, in high school, I tried to sign my own permission slip, and the school's lawyers completely flipped out. Because the point of them isn't to get legal permission from the responsible party; the point of them is to inform parents so that the parents' prior knowledge can be shown if they later object to their child, say, being transported across state lines or taught sex ed. They're really not legal documents.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 4:58 PM on August 27, 2021 [26 favorites]

Regardless of whether or not this was kiddie porn, intended or not to be kiddie porn, whether or not the guy is just trying to get money out of it all-- really, shouldn't it just be "don't take naked pictures of your child and show them around, since the kid can't consent and may grow up to not be cool with that later?"

I've definitely thought that about this photo before: if I were that guy I wouldn't be super thrilled with my baby weiner on display for eternity. Sure, it's his one claim to fame, but would you want that to be your one claim to fame? (Which I think on some level is his complaint?) I always felt kinda icked out looking at it, especially since, I dunno, they could have covered up his penis or something.
posted by jenfullmoon at 5:16 PM on August 27, 2021 [6 favorites]

The relevant distinction being civil versus criminal here

I'm not sure that's the relevant distinction. In part because, in the situation under discussion, the publication of the image was not a criminal act, or at the very least was not regarded as one by any prosecuting authority in the world. But, possibly more fundamentally, because my question is about what rights we, as individuals, should have to control the publication of images of ourselves. Criminal prosecutions are almost invariably conducted by the state, not the victim. Criminal law affords far less control to victims of crimes than civil law does to victims of torts.

To be clear, what I'm trying to grapple with is whether an expansion of our rights in our own likenesses should be linked to the culturally and personally contingent issue of nudity, or whether it would make more sense to provide a more general right of control, and to what extent and in what ways that could or should function retroactively. Something can be a profound violation without being pornographic. Some relevant issues around autonomy and cultural and personal context are possibly illustrated by thinking about (for example) people who wear some form of hijab outside their homes for cultural and/or religious reasons. Many of those people would feel a strong sense of personal violation if an image of them without their chosen public clothing were published without their consent, and I think we can probably agree that this would be entirely reasonable. But, of course, those cultural perspectives can change during a lifetime, and intergenerationally. One thing I'm thinking of here is that there are are many Muslim women living in the Western world who take a more stringent view of the appropriate standard of modest dress than their parents did. It seems like their right to control their image should reflect their own standard, not the standards of their parents, or the particular bright line which seems most important from a Eurocentric perspective. But it also seems to me that affording that degree of control doesn't necessarily depend on the position that a person has been wronged by the publication of an image by those who believed it to be innocuous.

It's not empty theorising to consider these issues. The question of what rights we should have in our own likenesses is an extremely and increasingly important one, but I don't think it's a simple, or that it has obvious noncontroversial answers.
posted by howfar at 5:21 PM on August 27, 2021 [3 favorites]

My apologies; my attempted pithiness got ahead of me. I agree with quoted assertion. On a side note, I'm enjoying *some* of this discussion
posted by DeepSeaHaggis at 5:36 PM on August 27, 2021 [1 favorite]

I know that my mum's Facebook extensively digitised photo albums have exactly those sort of pictures of me, directly available to hundreds of people I've never met, and indirectly to everyone in the world, and I couldn't care less.

I think that if not now, soon, there's going to be a huge reckoning on Facebook photo albums - in particular, because Facebook is profiting off of the photos you are posting, which you took, but may not, in fact, have the rights to depending on where you took it.
posted by corb at 7:05 PM on August 27, 2021 [5 favorites]

Shouldn't he be suing Geffen? The label had an art director that designed the cover, and the label approved publishing it. The photo was not taken by the band, and the album art was not the creative product of the band members.
posted by See you tomorrow, saguaro at 7:21 PM on August 27, 2021 [11 favorites]

I am kind of surprised and troubled by the level of intensity and scorn with which some folks seem upset at the mere suggestion that children's bodies and likenesses-- nude or not!-- be removed from consideration as a source of profit / career attainment for someone else.

If children's bodies and likenesses are removed as a source of profit/career attainment for someone else, then we wouldn't have art with children in it. No movies about families, no coming of age TV shows. It's an extreme suggestion and people are going to react accordingly.
posted by Mavri at 8:10 PM on August 27, 2021 [5 favorites]

If children's bodies and likenesses are removed as a source of profit/career attainment for someone else, then we wouldn't have art with children in it. No movies about families, no coming of age TV shows. It's an extreme suggestion and people are going to react accordingly.

it is a patently ridiculous notion
posted by djseafood at 8:38 PM on August 27, 2021

If an 18 year old can retroactively revoke consent things their parents did to them, how would doctors treat children? For example, can I sue the doctor who cut off my foreskin decades ago, even if he was doing it at the request of my parents? What if I decide I really didn't want braces after all, or that I am against vaccines?
posted by mrgoldenbrown at 10:08 PM on August 27, 2021 [4 favorites]

Metafilter: I'm enjoying *some* of this discussion
posted by The Underpants Monster at 10:38 PM on August 27, 2021 [12 favorites]

But is that a qualitatively different right to the kind of control you should have over who sees you in general?

Yep.
posted by The Underpants Monster at 10:48 PM on August 27, 2021

And I think we're realizing now that we were wrong in the 80s and 90s to take so many nude photos of kids.

I think this is a big part of the reaction here. There's been a big societal shift over the past 40 years or so based on fear/awareness of pedophilia. The general distain increased quickly enough that we retroactively applied public offender lists and indefinite civil detainment. This filtered down to things like how adults should interact with unrelated children and perceptions of childhood nudity.

In that context, I can see how this guy would feel traumatized. I don't think I would have felt or acted the same way (a Nevermind chest tattoo? Seriously?), but we each have our own life and frames to view ourselves. That's a two-way street, so please don't tell me how I'd feel if it was my nudity for the world to see.
posted by netowl at 11:23 PM on August 27, 2021 [2 favorites]

But frankly, I don't believe that matters, because Elden didn't consent. He couldn't; he was a baby.

But based on that reasoning, we shouldn't take pictures of animals either because being as they are animals they can't give consent either.

As a detail, I will add that in the monkey selfie case it was ruled that animals cannot legally hold a copyright. Whether this is an ethical position though, especially with how people feel about the Nirvana case? I'm actually not sure.
posted by FJT at 11:23 PM on August 27, 2021 [1 favorite]

Kids these days won't sue their parents for putting them in pornography, but will sue them for throwing out their pornography
posted by ominous_paws at 12:43 AM on August 28, 2021

But based on that reasoning, we shouldn't take pictures of animals either because being as they are animals they can't give consent either.

It's worth noting that rejecting the relevance of potential future preferences is also the basis for some preference utilitarian views that suggest that meat eating and infanticide are potentially morally equivalent. It also leads to questions about whether a sleeping person, or a person in a coma, should be photographed without their consent. I'm not saying that that your point implies a defence of infanticide (or creepy pictures of sleeping people and child &/or animal abuse) but I think our moral intuitions and consensuses do generally involve the idea that potential future preference is relevant, and that there are genuine questions to ask about when and how we should respond to that intuition.

Yep.

I think this simple position has complex implications, particularly in a multicultural society with a range of views about what kind of dress is required for public dignity and modesty (see above).
posted by howfar at 1:59 AM on August 28, 2021

They'll settle out of court. The guy will get a one-time payment in exchange for going away.

Then they should take him off the cover (recreate it with a fake baby who can't sue) if only so he can't continue to tell everyone he's the guy on the cover.
posted by pracowity at 2:02 AM on August 28, 2021 [3 favorites]

I can understand his disappointment and perhaps a feeling of having been debased in some way. But I feel that by extorting the remaining band members he's only debased himself further. He closed whatever window there was for him to ever be anything other than "Nirvana's Baby".
posted by dmh at 4:22 AM on August 28, 2021 [3 favorites]

The "child porn" argument goes nowhere. The obscenity angle was, as I recall, pretty fully explored on the album's original release.

The trauma claim is potentially real and not trivial, but it doesn't look like it's legally particularly actionable? As others have said, his behavior doesn't actually put the lie to this, but the question still stands as to the degree the defendants are responsible for his trauma, particularly as the social/public aspects of it really are of his own making (it's not like the name of the "Nirvana baby" was even remotely widely enough known for this to regularly be intruding unbidden into his social interactions much).

The sense of never having seen a share of something extremely lucrative? No matter how dispiriting it is, that's par for the course. Hundreds to thousands of creators work on every project, and only a tiny number of those get continuing revenue from it; most get a one-time payday and bragging rights. For works which sink without a trace, that's not necessarily a bad deal. For works which get crazy popular, it might be frustrating but most talent acknowledges and works by those rules. Carole Kaye played bass on a truly staggering number of hits of the 60s and has never seen a dime of royalties for that work (nor expected one, because that's not what studio bass players get).
posted by jackbishop at 5:24 AM on August 28, 2021 [9 favorites]

I am not at all qualified to speak to the legal merits of the plaintiff’s case, so I won’t attempt to do that. Morally, I think he is owed some money. To me, he’s like an intern at an early stage startup who makes some innocuous but real contribution (say, designing the logo or writing some copy for the website), and then the startup goes public and makes all of the founders billionaires. Surely you can throw the person some of that cash they helped make with their small-yet-tangible contribution? Even if it’s a cash grab, even if his parents signed a release.
posted by miltthetank at 6:00 AM on August 28, 2021 [2 favorites]

he’s like an intern at an early stage startup who makes some innocuous but real contribution (say, designing the logo or writing some copy for the website)

But he didn't make any creative contribution to the product, even close to designing a logo, any more than the dollar bill did, or the font used on the cover.

An intern and an infant are not the same thing, and the infant did not make a contribution equalling designing a logo. The money earned by the band Nirvana is a result of their creative efforts. There are other people along the way who actually made creative contributions to Nevermind, who were paid for their services, and don't get any "future earnings", such as the studio owner where the record was recorded, and the sound engineers, and the producers. Maybe the vinyl pressing factory should sue Nirvana because they think they didn't get paid enough back in 1991 for the initial pressing of the album and that gives them trauma?

I'm sorry this guy was traumatized and it's shitty the way things turned out, but the idea that he's owed money from the band for a poor business decision his parents made doesn't ring true for me. I guess if the lawsuit centers on the improper use of the photo since his parents never signed a release or use agreement, that might make more sense but that's why he should be suing Geffen. Also, I I wonder if there's a statute of limitations on improper use that occurred 30 years ago.
posted by See you tomorrow, saguaro at 8:36 AM on August 28, 2021 [10 favorites]

The logical conclusion of this statement is that at no stage can a young child be depicted in a commercial work at all.

That works for me

I was ready to ask what art would be like if it completely forbade the depiction of children and then I realized every movie would be Clifford. And now I’m…for it??
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 9:50 AM on August 28, 2021 [2 favorites]

But he didn't make any creative contribution to the product, even close to designing a logo, any more than the dollar bill did, or the font used on the cover.

Sure he did, he was the iconic model on the album cover, and a fellow human being in our capitalist society who needs money to live. It’s a much more creative role than someone pressing a vinyl record. Was it a conscious contribution? Well he was an infant at the time, so I doubt it. Could another baby have done a similarly good job? Who’s to say? But in this universe, he created something indelibly tied with the record’s place in our culture, a place that has generated hundreds of millions of dollars in receipts. Again, not a legal argument—I just think he’s morally owed more than a random dude at the vinyl factory. I view his role as much less interchangeable. And frankly, the fact that he’s suing a bunch of millionaires makes this more clear cut for me (morally, I don’t think the guy he’s suing who left the band before the record even came out should have to pay anything).
posted by miltthetank at 10:56 AM on August 28, 2021 [4 favorites]

I think clearly Spencer Elden needs some evaluation and therapy. His behavior and obsession over this is not healthy. Maybe his entire life his parents introduced him as the baby on the Nirvana cover and his identity began to grow around it to the point where he perhaps rightly felt the need to be compensated? If every time a Nirvana song came on and my parents would feel the need to mention that I was the baby on the album I'd probably grow up bragging about it, then feel the utter rejection when it was no more than a bit of pop culture trivia to my peers. I speak from experience about this, your parents can really create false perceptions of self well into adulthood. I sincerely hope he gets the help he needs and not through a frivolous lawsuit.

Again, the world owes him only in the sense that he grew up his entire life thinking the world owed him and likely hit adulthood realizing he's the butt of jokes. Yeah the album screwed him up, but make no mistake no one involved did anything wrong except his parents. Maybe I'm wrong and he had a fine upbringing, is realizing he's a failed artist and is externalizing it?

I think speculation won't help anything. There's no reason for us to rationalize his behavior as some sort of statement on the revocation of consent, capitalism or the nature of art. The best thing he can do at this point would be surround himself with good people who enjoy him for who he is and get to a place where he can comfortably tell people, "Oh that song? You know I was on that album!" laugh about it and move on. I feel as if people encouraging him to bring about a lawsuit, invite Nirvana to his shows or whatever are exactly the type of vultures trying to capitalize on his tenuous connection to a piece of pop culture.
posted by geoff. at 11:33 AM on August 28, 2021 [8 favorites]

I do agree with what many here are arguing - that a baby did not consent to be in an image that became inescapable and he has a right to control his own image, that his life was irrevocably changed by that image and that someone owes him something, but this case seems like a very bad one to hang these things on, and dude seems like he got himself a very crooked lawyer. The suit alleges that the image was pornographic and it was not, and it seeks compensation from the band members, who were not the main people responsible for the photo or its place on the album cover, and it turns out one of the members named in the suit was not even in the band when the photo was taken.

As geoff said, it's clear the guy has problems and I hope he does get some help, but this lawsuit is not it. And there are other deeper problems that are not going to be solved by this either, like an individual's right to control his image, or the fact that in our society some artists can become multimillionaires while others get nothing. These are problems worthy of big discussions, but this lawsuit is most likely going to get settled quietly or laughed out of court, and nothing is going to change.
posted by maggiemaggie at 11:48 AM on August 28, 2021 [7 favorites]

Sigh... Isn't it a bit sad, though, that we now think of a band like Nirvana as just "a bunch of millionaires". Makes you wonder what Kurt would have made of this if he'd still been around. Someone mentioned up thread that we at least have Courtney Love's take on this to look forward to. Some consolation
posted by bitteschoen at 1:50 PM on August 28, 2021 [3 favorites]

Humans hate it when someone gets something they don’t think they deserve. This they are more worried about a welfare cheat than they are a billionaire tax cheat. This is the same thing. When you get call this a cash grab or question if he wasn’t genuinely traumatized; you are just falling for the same bait that the rich and powerful use to control you.
posted by interogative mood at 6:08 PM on August 28, 2021 [1 favorite]

I wonder what the reaction would be if rhis suit was being brought by the little 11 year old girl from the "Blind Faith" album...
I can imagine both might see themselves as having been objectified, both literally and artistically.
And that isn 't a great feeling, when it's your parents put you in a situation that you can consent to, other professionals actively participate in the process, and ultimately, others are financially profiting off of the controversy or interest that your photographed bodily form generated.

If the parents aren't sharp enough to safeguard the child's interests, I would hope that there would be a professional standard that says "Hey, this kid might not ultimately be comfortable with what we have chosen to do with their body in terms of representation... We need to ensure they receive fair compensation in trust for them."

If this was a grown adult on either album cover stating that they felt exploited and their consent over-ridden/ignored to make "art" and wish to receive damages, then we would all be #MeToo-ing it up. Why does age make a difference?

If it feels exploitative and shitty, and non-consensual, then that is how it feels to these people, who had absolutely no agency or power to stop/control, or even understand what was happening in the moment.... much less the long-term repercussions/feelings they are now experiencing.

These controversial/influential images helped make a lot of cash, for a lot of people. If brand and evocative imagery didn't affect sales, then people would just type album names on blank pieces of paper; these images would never have been taken.

But these images were taken, without the subject's actual consent, and used to great financial gain.
So now it is time to pay up, with interest.

I have no idea how much is charged to capture weird, controversial nude child photos these days.... I have a sense that they probably cannot actually be bought ethically in today's market, at any price.
posted by NorthernAutumn at 10:17 PM on August 28, 2021 [4 favorites]

Pardon, missed the edit...
"And that isn 't a great feeling, when it's your parents put you in a situation that you LITERALLY & LEGALLY CANNOT choose to consent to..."
posted by NorthernAutumn at 11:09 PM on August 28, 2021

they are more worried about a welfare cheat than they are a billionaire tax cheat. This is the same thing. When you get call this a cash grab or question if he wasn’t genuinely traumatized; you are just falling for the same bait that the rich and powerful use to control you.

I think there's value in this perspective: we do live in a world that teaches us a profoundly distorted standard of what constitutes "just" enrichment. I think that another part of capitalist institutionalisation is the idea that we can fix the system from within: that we can achieve equity by financially compensating exploited people individually, in accordance with our developing understanding of what exploitation is. In some ways, I'm recapitulating, here (and above), what I've said about cuItural intellectual property rights in the past . But I'd also ask for consideration of whether money claims, on balance, effectively oppose the injustice of capitalism, or whether they primarily act as a safety valve which keeps that system functioning. I have no moral problem with people straight up stealing from the rich, and still less problem with people seeking to have individual injustices rectified, but I question the idea that we can fix things by making the right people rich.

Fundamentally, I think that Audre Lorde's observation about the institutionalisation of racist patriarchy also applies to the way that we are institutionalised by capitalism: we are persuaded to see the master's tools as a means of dismantling the master's house, rather than merely as a way of temporarily beating him at his own game.
posted by howfar at 11:51 PM on August 28, 2021 [4 favorites]

A decade from now: the first child-pornography possession conviction is handed down to someone who forgot they had a 1990s copy of Nevermind in a box of old CDs in their loft. The box was taken to a charity shop after the house was sold; staff in the shop discovered the CD and immediately alerted the police as required to by law.
posted by acb at 4:16 AM on August 29, 2021 [2 favorites]

I mean, it wouldn't lead to a conviction, being that the album was released by a major record company, but I could see people calling the police over the Nevermind cover. For a while, there was a spate of parents getting prosecuted for child pornography because photo developers reported them for taking non-sexual photos of their naked kids.
posted by LouCPurr at 8:37 AM on August 29, 2021 [1 favorite]

Similarly, most waivers that parents sign for their kids to participate in slightly-dangerous activities (trampoline parks, gymnastics) or to go on field trips are UTTER NONSENSE and COMPLETELY UNENFORCEABLE, because negligence is negligence and a parent can't generally agree that it's TOTES FINE to be negligent towards their children.

Maybe in your state...I've seen them enforced up to and including fatal injury. Based on assumption of risk, as disclaimed.
posted by snuffleupagus at 4:47 PM on August 29, 2021

There are lots of people who very much enjoy and seek child pornography, and as a parent and a person, I am very skeeved out by that. Before the Internet and the Web made it easily accessible, these people definitely sought this album cover. I think his parents were dolts because of the naked baby picture with genitals, as well as the closeness to something big and famous that wasn't actually about him. He isn't coping well with any of it. They* should give him some money and make sure some of it is used for very competent therapy.

* They - Record companies have gobs of cash, I assume.
posted by theora55 at 8:18 PM on August 29, 2021 [2 favorites]

Before the Internet and the Web made it easily accessible, these people definitely sought this album cover.

I find this such a strange, unfounded assertion. NEVERMIND went platinum in its first year of release. It is one of the biggest-selling albums of all time. It was ubiquitous. The idea that pedophiles were furtively hunting out copies is... baffling.

The image is no more pornographic than those which could be found in a medical textbook, or... anything, really.
posted by ominous_paws at 5:25 AM on August 30, 2021 [7 favorites]

I have a lot of complicated feelings about this lawsuit. I agree with Dirty Old Town that Nirvana's agreeing to a generous financial settlement with Spencer Elden would be both the pragmatic and humane thing for the band to do, because the ubiquity of the image obviously has affected him psychically.

I also wonder why Elden isn't suing Geffen but is suing original drummer Chad Channing -- who not only was out of the band when the Nevermind cover shoot took place but also isn't any more likely than Elden himself is to have $150,000 kicking around, as box already has pointed out.
posted by virago at 7:12 AM on August 30, 2021 [1 favorite]

There are parents all over social media using their kids to make money and it feels icky and exploitative to me. But if we make laws against that, then do we also outlaw child actors in Hollywood films?

Enthusiastic yes over here. I believe children are entitled to a healthy childhood and that the existence of child actors is an abomination that serves capitalism but not the exploited children. There is no law that demands that the lives of minors be exploited to create entertainment for paying customers.
posted by Bella Donna at 5:20 AM on August 31, 2021 [2 favorites]

Before the Internet and the Web made it easily accessible, these people definitely sought this album cover.

Wow if ever a [citation needed] was deserved.
posted by aspersioncast at 7:43 PM on August 31, 2021 [6 favorites]

« Older I am not a woman, I'm a god | Coors Light, ice cold! Heineken, ice cold! Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments

MetaFilter

Come as you are? Nevermind
August 27, 2021 9:13 AM Subscribe

Tags

Share

Come as you are? Nevermind August 27, 2021 9:13 AM Subscribe

Tags

Share

Come as you are? Nevermind
August 27, 2021 9:13 AM Subscribe