Attack of the Gerber Babies!
2 Likes
It would be cool to see a line up of all the “could have been” covers!
3 Likes
Kurt Kobain’s original concept was to have a woman birthing a child under water but the designer they hired talked them into a new direction after realizing he couldn’t make that work.
5 Likes
and the selection process
20 Likes
The teddy bear and the platinum album are conveniently left out of all the stories. Though I guess I’m a softy, once the album exploded they could have offered to pay for the kid’s college or something.
Note - I don’t think he should get anything now from this lawsuit, it would have been a nice gesture on their part back in the day.
3 Likes
I saw that in the article! I’m really glad someone changed his mind…I love the cover they ended up with.
5 Likes
Same thought the wife and I had when we talked about this last night. His own previous comments about the picture can and will be used against him in a court of law. Seems like he’s just looking for a quick payday here. Not to mention she and I both agree we saw the cover as absolutely a riff on capitalism, not a sexualized baby.
8 Likes
It also seems like he’s just not very smart, at least financially. According to the article linked above, he was paid the same amount ($200) to pose for the recreation of the cover 25 years later…so no inflation, no capitalizing on the fame and success of the album, seems kind of financially illiterate.
9 Likes
Let me guess, Client also caught the QAnon bug? Honorable mention for the fact that he pretty much proves the message of the cover. Gimme dat funky funky SAY WHAT!
2 Likes
I suppose that was a work of hire.
Like the sax solo in Sapore di Sale, made by Gato Barbieri. He and the orchestra were paid for playing in the takes. The modey for the record sales went to RCA, and Gino Paoli and Morricone as authors.
2 Likes
Again:
13 Likes
lasciviously displayed Spencer’s genitals
Eh…no. I don’t think there is anything “lasciviously” displayed. If one thinks that, there is a problem with the viewer, not the image. I suppose being a famous naked baby and not being independently wealthy for it is frustrating and to a degree embarrassing. But come on, dude.
But there is nothing lascivious about a naked baby/kid just running around/swimming. If you’re of a certain age, without a doubt your parents have one of you in the buff running around or in the tub when you were little. God help some of my friends who had kids who never wanted to wear clothes.
I always thought the album cover was such a crude and naive charicature of capitalism and consumerism that it could only be ironic.
Yep, it is.
6 Likes
I am not sure he is thinking this through. It seems like the people responsible for making the cover have a much better case against him for accusations of creating child pornography. That’s a real and tangible impact on a person’s livelihood and ability to provide for themselves. Whatever he could possibly win for this would be a pittance compared to the harm they could show, i bet.
2 Likes
He’s definitely squandered any lingering goodwill he had for being the “Nevermind” baby.
8 Likes
They probably don’t want to go to deal with any of this court nonsense at all, either as plaintiffs or defendants.
Mr. Elden and his attorney are probably betting on this and just bringing suit in the hopes of getting a quick settlement to make it all go away.
9 Likes
If I were Dave Grohl & Co, I’d make Spencer go all the way through the litigation process, as this is clearly a cash grab.
Additionally, as others have already noted, it could also be considered defamation.
8 Likes
IANAL but I think the legal criteria for “defamation” requires a false statement of fact. Expressing the opinion that the cover constitutes child pornography probably falls under protected speech even if it’s a completely dumbass opinion any reasonable court should reject out of hand.
4 Likes
IANAL, either; still claims of ‘child porn,’ no matter how implausible, can be severely damaging to people’s reputation - and since the jackass is suing, making it a matter of public record, I think it can be argued that he has stated it as fact, not mere opinion.
6 Likes
Obvious cash grab, but I bet that the models for certain Blind Faith, Scorpions, and Led Zeppelin covers are IMing each other.
6 Likes
Ooooooooookay. I see we’re operating at normal empathy levels here on BB today. So, in no particular order:
-
His lawsuit claims Nirvana (et al) never had rights to the picture. Maybe this is true, maybe it isn’t, but it’s your basic “let’s sue someone” stuff.
-
Of course he’s suing because he needs money. There’s rarely any other reason for most individuals to sue someone. Apparently one reason he needs money is because he’s an “artist” of some sort (hyuk hyuk hyuk!). Very, very few lawsuits are about “the principle of the thing.”
-
Yes, he said he was okay with his notoriety at other points in his life, but now he’s saying he was misused in a way relating to sex. Consider, as you gleefully post links to him seeming okay with it in the past, that most sexual abuse survivors could be (and are) dismissed in the same way.
I ain’t mad at Nirvana. And sure, maybe he’s just the most awful, grifty, attention-seeking so-and-so. But the proof of that, from what any of us know from this one story, is about as thin as the proof that Nirvana deliberately hyped him as kiddie porn.
