Suing them claiming child pornography.
Baby on Nirvana's cover of Nevermind sues
- Thread starter Glenn's Take
- Start date
He recreated the album cover to celebrate the 25th anniversary of nevermind. He's also recreated it numerous times on social media. At one time I'm pretty sure he had "Nevermind" tatooed on his chest. I guess he doesn't have any money now so let's get something for nothing. Either that or his manhood is still the same size as on the cover.
Great album, btw. I'm partial to Drain You as the best song.
Great album, btw. I'm partial to Drain You as the best song.
It's not enough for him to be on an iconic album cover.
People are the worst.
People are the worst.
He's been profiting from it for years too.
Am I missing something? Where’s the child pornography ?
The naked child grasping with all he can for the dollar. So says his lawyer, lol. You can't make this stuff up.
I had Nevermind on cassette when it first came out. My mom was much more upset about the picture of Kurt Cobain flipping the bird when you opened the package than she was about the baby
I was working in the music section at Target when this came out and they had me put a sticker over the penis on the covers.
Wouldn't the fact his legal guardians/parents at the time actually gave permission for it to be used and took money for it end any discussion about a lawsuit? Not to mention the even less strict definition of child pornography requires it to the be the focal point of the picture, which it clearly isn't.
Never even noticed the baby was naked or that parts were showing. That's how much I care about album covers and shock art, I guess
Turn off the show... it's just distraction after distraction wasting your time and energy. Wth cares
Frivolous lawsuits and the entertainment industry... who'd have thought
Turn off the show... it's just distraction after distraction wasting your time and energy. Wth cares
Frivolous lawsuits and the entertainment industry... who'd have thought
From what I read the parents gave permission to use the picture but were told the baby's thing would be covered or cropped out. I have no idea if that's true, but if it is they probably have a case. However, as the attorney for Nirvana I'd question why they didn't sue 30 years ago.
Probably waiting to see if his pecker would ever grow.
I hope that he gets nothing and his attorney has to eat his fees. That is not a pornographic image and his parents agreed to the photo shoot.
I read before that he gave interviews in the past that said he was ok with the album cover until he had reached out to the band for an appearance or something and they never responded so that was when he decided he would sue because of the album cover.
From HG.ORG
Visual illustrations containing child pornography are deemed illegal under federal law. These may include photographs, videos, digital downloads, images produced to depict an actual minor, undeveloped film and video and electronically stored data.
Sexual activity is not needed in the image to be considered pornography. The images may contain a nude picture of a child that is deemed sexually suggestive and be considered illegal. Child pornography under federal law is the disregard for age of consent for sexual activity in a given state. Some states consider age of consent to be younger than 18 years old, but when child pornography is concerned, any depiction of a minor under the age of 18 engaging in sexually explicit conduct is unlawful.