She could still sue for a horse.
Michael Avenatti tried it with Nike. It didn’t work out well for him
If you ask me, he shouldn’t be suing anybody.
My point was that his parents made the choice to permit his image to be used for that album cover. Not Kurt Cobain/the photographer/studio/record label/band/Courtney Love, whoever.
It’s not a choice I’d make for my children. But the choice his parents made appears (as far as I can tell) to be completely above board. By no stretch of the imagination is it child porn.
The suit apparently alleges that the parents never signed a release, and maybe there’s an issue there. I’ll leave that to the lawyers.
But exploitation and child porn? I don’t see it.
If there was no release, perhaps there’s a case but shouldn’t his parents be the ones to sue? They permitted the photograph. IANAL but in legal terms, does he have standing to sue on the basis of no release being provided?
I was pointing out the general principle of these types of lawsuits. I’m not saying this is a well-developed example of the principle. This case looks like it’s down on the ambulance chaser end of the legal spectrum.
That said, the target of the negative publicity campaign wouldn’t be the photographer or the band members. It would be the corporations that are being sued and would be touchy about being associated with accusations of child pornography, even if the accusations are baseless.
My stepdaughter did some baby modelling five years ago. An acquaintance with identical twins (who’d been practically chased down the street by a film maker who saw the opportunity) mentioned a respectable agency, and we signed her up. No regrets. It was about five shoots (work made more difficult) over a year, and earned her over a grand. By law, the money had to be paid into an account in her (my stepdaughter’s) name.
We’d have continued if my ex hadn’t had to go back to work - I can’t drive and most of the shoots required a car.
There have to be babies of some sort of show what baby clothes and so on actually look like on babies. The shoots were easy, fun for her, and gave her some extra money to use for whatever she wants to do when she grows up.
Yep. It’s all in favour of Nirvana so far. If he’d spent the past thirty years hiding in shame because he was so traumatised, he might have a case. But he hasn’t.
Being against child porn doesn’t mean that, if you see a photo of a naked baby, you think it’s sexual. It’s pretty much the opposite.
Ya know, if this guy was down on his luck and needed a few bucks, I bet if he asked Dave for a cool million, you know, just as a gift, he probably would have given it to him. Or maybe $2m.
Dave is cool like that.
“Always Be Yourself. Unless you can be Dave Grohl. Then Always Be Dave Grohl.”
The Hollywood Reporter has an article talking to some lawyers who doubt the case has any chance of success. One lawyer is quoted, “I think what will be most troubling for any judge will be the amount of time that has elapsed since the photo was published, the fact the kid’s parents did this knowingly (more or less, but they knew the naked baby was being photographed), and the numerous times that the plaintiff himself embraced the photo and sought publicity for himself.”
You know, regardless of the merits of the case (of which I think there are few to none), a chunk of the originally cited article screamed ‘cash-grab’ to me.
… a number of existing or defunct record companies that released or distributed the album in the last three decades.
Curiously, original Nirvana drummer Chad Channing is also named as a defendant who was part of the group at the time, even though he had been replaced by Grohl in 1990, before the album was recorded or the cover photography shot.
This is a shotgun lawsuit, throw it at anyone even remotely associated with the product, and see who if anyone settles. And I’ll join the chorus who feel that this is a late term effort to get $ or attention as a semi-literal man-baby (sorry, couldn’t resist). And anecdotally, yes, everyone I’m aware of who’s mentioned the case has seen it as naked (sorry, still couldn’t resist) cash grab.
@Saintly_Loser made a good point that (barring the remote possibility that there was no legal agreement to use his likeness which I find extremely unlikely) the persons most responsible for the harm he cites were his parents, not the band and/or record companies. Stepping away from the validity or nature of the claim though, this person seems deeply unhappy, possibly in large part because (as others have mentioned) this is something he has never let go of for his whole life. While I doubt he would have ever been fully anonymous, his periodic recreations and efforts to connect with the band for his own unrelated personal projects speaks of a profound inability to let go.
So while I don’t think he deserves the money, I do think he needs help. May he get it.
About sexuality in photographs:
Naked isn’t sexy unless one is oiled But put socks on the model and it is. So something on, even if it’s oil, is sexier than just naked skin.
Naked is vulnerable. And our empathy kicks in before our sexual urges.
What a shame that you felt (potentially, correctly so) that you had to do that.
This case is getting odder, now the weird transparent angel lady from “In Utero” just announced a lawsuit.
Then he needs to discuss this with three people.
He should tell his mother and father that he feels they did him wrong for having him photographed naked. This presumes of course that his parents knew it would be used, and knew it would become a somewhat iconic photo. (All this makes me wonder if he’s suing his parents as well.)
Then he needs to look himself in a mirror and have a discussion with himself. If he just went about his business, no one would know it was him. But instead he wanted to turn his 15 minutes of fame into something more - until he didn’t.
You’ll notice I didn’t include a lawyer on this list
The comments on that page seem to be taking the article seriously!
I got as far as
“Anytime I’m out in public people stare at me, they want me to strip naked and recreate the photo for them. Most of them have children, and that’s just weird. The only time people didn’t bother me is when I would visit the Bodies exhibit and stand perfectly still.”
Before I realized it was a parody.
I wonder if the site censors comments that betray the ruse.
The headline and article photo kinda gave it away right at the start for me, but the story itself made me wish someone at The Onion had written it and reminded me why no other satire sites have become regular stops for me. They just don’t do it as well.
"and my client has been forced to hide it from her multiple weird transparent cherub children. "
A Viking or a pirate, maybe, but Dave Grohl?
Dave Grohl makes Chuck Norris smile and want to dance.