rank the songs on nirvana's "nevermind"

We're talking about old print articles from 1991

...in oft-cited (and archived online) publications like Rolling Stone and Spin, in addition to a best-selling authorized band biography published when he was a toddler.

So the theory would be that he suffered "loss of wages" b/c a prospective employer searched his name, found the same name in some old articles, concluded it's the same guy and refused to hire him for some reason?

there are plenty of people who were featured in super-iconic media properties when they were small children who are "known" in the sense that their names are associated with it online and maybe there are some articles here and there, but who live normal adult lives as relative unknowns just bc they dont engage with it, and people stop caring after a certain point (especially if you dont continue in showbiz.) it is possible to be in a situation like that and not make it part of your personal identity for life. i know people personally who have been/are in that exact situation, and who seem to find it very manageable to navigate how much or little they want it to impact their adult lives, largely by moving on, not giving interviews, and not trying to cash in. the idea that he was irreversibly doomed to a life of fame and ridicule from infancy is a delusion.

he has the right to have mixed feelings and feel confused about this. he never gave consent because he was an infant and incapable of it. it's not difficult to understand the personal turmoil of millions of people being able to see your penis forever anytime they want. this has nothing to do whether he publicly announced that he was the infant on the cover. plus, these things are documented, so i'm sure if you really wanted to know, and he hadn't said anything, you could've found out.

showing an infant's penis on the front cover adds no artistic value to the original artistic intent, except for playing with borderline shock antics. at the very least, they should remove his genitals from there. if they refuse, i agree with a lawsuit and compensation.

showing an infant's penis on the front cover adds no artistic value to the original artistic intent, except for playing with borderline shock antics

I can understand feeling uncomfortable that half the world has seen your naked baby picture but I don't agree with this. If the message is that greed and consumerism are taught to us as soon as we are born, like from a state of nature, I do think showing a naked baby chasing a dollar bill sends a different message than putting a diaper on him (or airbrushing out his penis).

showing an infant's penis on the front cover adds no artistic value to the original artistic intent, except for playing with borderline shock antics. at the very least, they should remove his genitals from there. if they refuse, i agree with a lawsuit and compensation.

What's shocking? That babies have genitalia?

I never thought of it as sexual or a shock tactic.

Maybe one thing that could come from this business is that parents won't be able to profit from the sale of the images of their children.

This seems like a legitimate complaint: A possibly new contention in the lawsuit is that Elden’s parents never even signed paperwork allowing any use of the image.

Everything else seems like a pretty far reach to me.

This seems like a legitimate complaint: A possibly new contention in the lawsuit is that Elden’s parents never even signed paperwork allowing any use of the image.

Yeah, that's the part that leaped out at me, and the part I cannot imagine a multinational corporation's legal department overlooked for 30 years.

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-58327844

Now 30, Elden says his parents never signed a release authorising the use of his image on the album.

The legal case also alleges that Nirvana had promised to cover Elden's genitals with a sticker, but the agreement was not upheld.

and iirc there's a bit about him in Azzerad's Nirvana bio from '94.

― Precious, Grace, Hill & Beard LTD. (C. Grisso/McCain), Wednesday, August 25, 2021 12:18 PM (one hour ago) bookmarkflaglink

there is and to the best of my recollection they used it because it was the best photo they got of the baby swimming and were worried that the penis might be a problem, then somebody or other said fuck it, we can just put a sticker over it if people complain. a lot of unintended consequences to something i don't think anyone was thinking all that deeply about at the time.

If the message is that greed and consumerism are taught to us as soon as we are born, like from a state of nature, I do think showing a naked baby chasing a dollar bill sends a different message than putting a diaper on him (or airbrushing out his penis).

― Sequel to Sadness (Sund4r), Wednesday, August 25, 2021 10:12 AM (fifteen minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

this seems to be a call for unnecessarily realistic "art." movies don't generally film all the mundane things that happen between main points, just as other art doesn't. sure, there is a niche for this, but when it involves nude infants and children, they should be left out of it.

The only acceptable case in which a baby penis should be shocking is if it’s start peeing while you’re changing his diaper.

People who find baby penis shocking might want to avoid museums completely. You might end up shocked from all the baby jesus penises in there.

the part I cannot imagine a multinational corporation's legal department overlooked for 30 years

That wouldn't be surprising to me; but yeah the release an interesting angle.

this seems to be a call for unnecessarily realistic "art." movies don't generally film all the mundane things that happen between main points, just as other art doesn't. sure, there is a niche for this, but when it involves nude infants and children, they should be left out of it.

I don't think it's a call for unnecessary realism! If you want to depict or represent human life in its initial state of nature, it makes a difference to the depiction if a child is wearing clothes or not, same reason it matters that Adam and Eve are described as naked when they were created in the Bible. It's not a mundane detail like "why don't we see Michael Corleone brushing his teeth?" I'm totally fine with people arguing that e.g. they should use a painting instead of a photograph of a real person but I'm just saying that nakedness has an artistic purpose there, that it's not just a shock tactic.

this seems to be a call for unnecessarily realistic "art." movies don't generally film all the mundane things that happen between main points, just as other art doesn't.

frantically trying to wrap my head around this.

also, just to add: art is a conversation between the artist, the piece, and the public. in the context of american society, this would have come across as, like i said, borderline shocking. anyway, this was only a minor point. if you want to normalize viewing nude children in art pieces that appear in non-sexual ways, that's a different conversation.

more and more often i see stuff and just think i don't want to have an opinion on this

last week: Bob Dylan
this week: Nirvana
next week: ???

also, just to add: art is a conversation between the artist, the piece, and the public. in the context of american society, this would have come across as, like i said, borderline shocking. anyway, this was only a minor point. if you want to normalize viewing nude children in art pieces that appear in non-sexual ways, that's a different conversation.

Was the American public shocked? I was young at the time but I don't recall a controversy around the artwork for Nevermind like there was for e.g. the cover of Nothing's Shocking or around 2 Live Crew's music. Totally willing to hear about it if there was one.

I don't either. Honestly I've never thought about the baby's penis so much until this thread.

the fact that they talked about covering it up with a sticker is a pretty big flag that there was a conversation that this might not be appropriate

The album cover is super iconic but I can’t recall anyone among my friends at the time talking about anything other than the music. The actual shock whenever Nirvana was mentioned came from Kurt’s suicide.

the fact that they didnt cover it up and after it came out nobody reacted to that aspect of it is a big flag that it wasnt controversial

more and more often i see stuff and just think i don't want to have an opinion on this

― Blues Guitar Solo Heatmap (Free Download) (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Wednesday, August 25, 2021 1:43 PM (seven minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

ilx starting to feel more and more like twitter every day

this seems to be a call for unnecessarily realistic "art." movies don't generally film all the mundane things that happen between main points, just as other art doesn't. sure, there is a niche for this, but when it involves nude infants and children, they should be left out of it.

― Punster McPunisher,

I feel for the guy, this has obviously had a huge impact on his life that i don't doubt it's taken many years to process... But what a load of fucking bullshit.

I also sympathize w/him. The cover just doesn't meet any definition of pornography (let alone CSAM) that I'm aware of, which is why it's mystifying and even a little maddening that the complaint would push that angle.

i'm reading that the lawsuit includes all possible violations, including consent

baby penises meant different things back then but this is 2021

The cover just doesn't meet any definition of pornography (let alone CSAM) that I'm aware of, which is why it's mystifying and even a little maddening that the complaint would push that angle.

― Shallot Shortage 2021 (morrisp),

Any and all nudity in art is pornographic.

Afaict, the "nature of the action" of the suit is completely on child pornography grounds:

https://fr.scribd.com/document/521576572/Elden-v-Nirvana-L-L-C-et-al

xps

Any and all nudity in art is pornographic.

We can just go ahead and type anything into these little "Add a Post" boxes and click 'Submit Post' now can't we?

also, i just googled to see what people had to say about the cover art, and CBC called it "controversial," so there's that:

https://www.cbc.ca/radio/undertheinfluence/nirvana-s-nevermind-cover-almost-looked-completely-different-1.5445655

also, sund4r, i'm not a lawyer, and i haven't read the official case, i'm just going by discussions on the internet. it's not entirely unheard of that lawyers could pivot, though, but i guess that would fall more under strategy and compromising

there's a rolling stone article saying "While non-sexualized photos of infants are typically not considered child pornography under law, the suit argues that the images of Elden are sexualized."

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/nirvana-nevermind-baby-lawsuit-child-pornography-1216672/

someone else can fact-check this, though

it's not entirely unheard of that lawyers could pivot, though, but i guess that would fall more under strategy and compromising

So if there's a cash settlement and the lawyer says "yeah, never mind" (pun very much intended), what will the position of all the moral foot-stompers on this thread be? What's the next stop in the big anti-child pornography crusade? The tanning lotion ad where a dog is pulling down a little girl's bathing suit?

I remember that the In Utero artwork was altered to appease Wal Mart who refused to stock it otherwise, but don't recall any such furor over the Nevermind cover. xxp

The suit argues that the images of Elden are sexualized because the baby is grasping for money "like a sex worker," which seems highly specious.

Yes, the suit does make that argument. You can read it at the link I gave if you want to consider how convincingly it does so.xps

that's a bad angle. but i assume it's making a very big claim to try to settle for something else

Just FYI, because I used to work for a magazine that commissioned and/or purchased a lot of photo shoots: models get a one-time fee for a photo shoot. They are not entitled to royalties, ever. The photographer is, depending on the rights specifically granted at the time, which may include:

• "first rights" - the initial purchaser has the exclusive right to the first-ever use of the image(s), then after a designated interval the photographer can re-sell the image
• "world rights" - the initial purchaser owns the image(s) in perpetuity for all markets everywhere

This dude's parents were paid a flat fee at the time of the photo shoot. Legally, that's the end of Nirvana's or the record company's financial obligation to him or anyone other than the photographer. If it can be proven that the parents never signed a release form, his lawyer might be able to argue that Nirvana, DGC et al. never had the right to purchase the image from the photographer (because the photographer never had the right to sell it) and the album must therefore be withdrawn and reissued with new cover art, all other licensed versions of the image must be withdrawn, etc., etc. But that's unlikely to happen, and he's unlikely to see any kind of financial windfall from it.

models should be entitled to royalties forever

also all this pc gone mad catastrophising needs to stop

Was a college freshman at the time of the album’s release and not once so I recall anyone even remarking upon much less being shocked about the artwork. This was at a Christian college to boot.

We must be about the same age. I was also at a Christian college when the album came out, and as far as I can remember the cover was a non-issue. Baby penis usually is exempted from our society's restrictions on display of penis, and considered a symbol of innocence rather than sexuality.

just came in to rank the songs on Nevermind and wow this is not what I expected to find.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Putto

o well, whatever

just came in to rank the songs on Nevermind and wow this is not what I expected to find.