Ca. 1990, I dated a man who owned a used record store. EVERY.SINGLE.TIME someone purchased Prince’s “Lovesexy”, they would cringe and say, “…the cover…”
He is under the delusion that somehow he was ‘part’ of the band’s success, and they all got rich, while he’s still living with his mom and driving a Civic. He wasn’t part of the band’s success, literally any 4 month old baby could have been on that cover, he was chosen because his dad worked with the photographer.
He was a baby of convenience.
Agreed; the only thing I gather from all of his explanations is “Loser who’s looking for a payout and has convinced himself he’s entitled to one for existing” and “How can I monetize this?”
Absolutely.
As I said above, he wasn’t exploited by the photographer/studio/record label/band/widow of band member or whatever.
Perhaps he was exploited by his parents. I don’t know. Again, as I said above, I wouldn’t have my own children be models. It seems inherently exploitative to me. But that’s just me, and for better or worse, I get to make those decisions for my kids, just as that baby’s parents got to make the decision for him.
But was he damaged? Does he deserve compensation? I’ll let the lawyers in this thread opine on that. But I don’t see how.
All I have to say about this is:
Oh well, whatever, never mind
Lawyers don’t really do “deserve” they do “will the defendants need to pay?”
The problem I suspect the defendants have is that it will be decided by a jury and as any quick look at the comments on any popular social media site show - there are plenty of people out there whose reasoning is no more sophisticated than “the defendants made lots of money so give the plaintiff some” or similar. Throw in the societal taboo on nudity in general and child nudity in particular and it’s anyone’s guess what a juror will do.
My guess is the defendants will pay something to keep things happy.
Another factor lawyers often count on in situations like this is the stuff that goes on outside of the court. They can basically make the threat, “Sure, we don’t have evidence that will stand up in court. So we’ll lose the case. But by simply submitting the lawsuit, we will get a lot of media attention and cause a lot of negative publicity for you. And when we’re talking to the media, we’re free to make all kinds of allegations that we won’t have to substantiate. You’ll win in court but your public image will be severely damaged. So why don’t you pay us a settlement and keep us quiet?”
Anecdotally, Blind Melon was recording an album when Shannon Hoon died. The rest of the band decided to name that album after his daughter, who was just a few years old (if that) when he died.
She and I have a mutual Facebook friend. I’ve considered asking her how she feels about that 25 years later, but I’m not sure how to broach the topic with her. I don’t know what kind of memories she has of Shannon, if any.
That has nothing to do with this particular case, I admit. There are no real parallels, but now I’m genuinely curious.
lol she has a sense of humor …
That seems like something he could have done instead for some money. Have some porn company do a photo shoot where he’s a grown man naked repeating the photo, then he has sex with a Courtney Love look-alike. Would have made at least $20,000 going by how much these gimmick sex tape people are offered.
I’m wondering about a statute of limitations. (Generally speaking, though statutes may vary that, depending on the tort.) In my jurisdiction, minors who were under 18 at the time of the incident, can advance a claim under a “next friend” who is of legal age and has a legal relationship to the litigant; but if they don’t, it’s not all over. The formerly-minor individual can start a claim when they are 18, at which time they can then sue on their own. And if he did, in my jurisdiction, the clock starts again–he could sue up until he was 20. How can he sue now, ten years after limitations expired? (Understanding that limitations may be different in his location, but ten years?)
Either way, this guy is now 30. It’s been thirty years since that photo, and this litigant is well over 18. How is this matter not time-barred?
How’s that working out for the “Subway tuna is fake!” people?
IIRC I vaguely remember a shrink wrap sticker that covered the baby’s lower half?
Maybe it was my conservative area of the country. A penis wouldn’t have been openly displayed in the record racks. Walmart, Best Buy were sensitive to album cover art. We used to have a record store/head shop that wouldn’t be as strict.
His parents made $200. They weren’t exploiting him for financial gain. His dad works with the photographer. The photographer needs a baby for an underwater shoot. The dad (and mom) have a baby. That’s pretty much the plot of the story.
He should probably be suing his parents, then.
The best response I seen thus far: the court should award him a token $1, if they can track down the bill from the photo.
Now I’m not sure how it’s playing in Peoria, but everything I’ve seen about from my circle of friends, my social media, and this message board seems to unanimously point at negative publicity towards the plaintiff. I’m not seeing any sort of blemish on Nirvana’s reputation (or the photographer’s) and I find any real damage to the legacy to be unlikely.
I’m not saying that never happens, but I will say it rarely happens. Defendants fight like hell even over legitimate claims, most would not hesitate to fight to the death over something as questionable as this one. Besides, any public controversy in this case doesn’t really make the band look bad (look at the comments in this thread) and will likely sell more records.