Jump to content

Man photographed as baby on 'Nevermind' cover sues Nirvana, alleging child pornography


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Komusha said:

 

If actors get royalties for action figures and other merchandise then it's not crazy for him to feel like he should get something. Your argument doesn't hold water just because the baby isn't recognizable. It's still his likeness that is being used.

 

I'm not saying that it caused him harm, just that it's a weird situation that he's in. Must be weird to see your baby penis everywhere. If you don't think it would be weird then why don't you go ahead and post pics of you as a naked baby. I mean, there's no harm in it, right?

 

I mean, it I had baby pics of myself anywhere I was aware of, that seems like something I’d have done in GI!

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Komusha said:

 

If actors get royalties for action figures and other merchandise then it's not crazy for him to feel like he should get something. Your argument doesn't hold water just because the baby isn't recognizable. It's still his likeness that is being used.

 

I'm not saying that it caused him harm, just that it's a weird situation that he's in. Must be weird to see your baby penis everywhere. If you don't think it would be weird then why don't you go ahead and post pics of you as a naked baby. I mean, there's no harm in it, right?


Actors get merchandising money because their agents make that part of the deal from the jump and their portrayal of a character drives those sales.  His picture didn’t drive sales of Nevermind and his parents took a $200 deal.  Personally I don’t give a damn if my baby Dick ends up on the Internet, no one can connect it back to me.  No one runs into him on the street and recognizes him as the infant in the pool.

 

Sure it’s weird, but not sue them all weird.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Komusha said:

 

If actors get royalties for action figures and other merchandise then it's not crazy for him to feel like he should get something. Your argument doesn't hold water just because the baby isn't recognizable. It's still his likeness that is being used.

 

I'm not saying that it caused him harm, just that it's a weird situation that he's in. Must be weird to see your baby penis everywhere. If you don't think it would be weird then why don't you go ahead and post pics of you as a naked baby. I mean, there's no harm in it, right?


actors get anything for merchandising when it is in their contract. Carrie Fisher famously joked that they signed their likeness away to Lucas who made a tone on merchandising for Star Wars, that she has to pay George every time she looks in the mirror in the morning. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I already acknowledged in my original posts that I understand that actors signed a contract guaranteeing them royalties. What I'm saying is that it wouldn't be that weird for the kid to receive the same, except for the fact that his parents made a shitty deal for him that kept him from doing so. I feel like y'all are missing my nuance here. I understand he's not legally entitled to anything, but SHOULD he be? I personally feel like ethically he should. It's an unfortunate situation, but he's allowed to feel entitled to some sort of payment, even if legally he isn't obligated to one. You can disagree with me all you want because we're entitled to our opinions, but it's really for y'all to explain to me how contracts work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, it reminds me of the Witcher situation, although that’s a court in a totally different country with different laws.  If I remember correctly the whole lawsuit hinged on the fact that Polish law allows for relief when a contract leads to something so wildly successful that no one could have possibly predicted it at the time and it would be unfair to not share some of that wild success with one of the parties involved.  
 

It feels like a ethically shitty situation all around.  There’s no way of telling what part the image specifically played in the enduring legacy of the image or just being associated with the album itself, but it is weird that two decades later people are still routinely printing that image and making money off of it.  It would be one thing if it was purely album art where people are theoretically buying it incidentally, but if they’re selling posters and shirts that’s a somewhat different story.  I seriously doubt that any of the nonsense he’s claiming as damages is true, but it is bizarre to imagine that someone could be making money off of a picture of you that you never agreed to because your parents wanted $200 before you could talk. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ya, I don’t think anyone is really arguing here per se,  we are all in agreement that legally he isn’t entitled to anything and that the specific reasons he lists are nonsense so there isn’t really an argument here, just an opinion on if dude ethically should be compensated or not.  

 

That said I think coming at this the way he is with all of the nonsense and basically trauma larping certainly helps skew my opinion that na dude isn’t entitled to anything ethically. I think the inherent ability to drum up press about himself and other such social gifts he received as part of this is payment enough.

 

I think the only reason I care enough to post here about this actually is just because as someone currently laying in a hospital bed in the trauma ward suffering intense pain and some permanent physical loss, something completely forced upon me against my will by someone else, I find it kind of offensive.

 

If he really needs the money and all he has to offer is this piece of trivia, then he could probably get more creative with it. Like what about selling a service to rich gen xers at their birthday parties? “Have the genuine nirvana baby swim in your pool at your birthday party! Only 50k!”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like when people who are definitely not lawyers get into the weeds of what a person may or may not be entitled to in civil litigation. Go talk to your favorite trial lawyer and ask questions about the dumb awards they have won for clients. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...
On 1/4/2022 at 7:52 PM, Kal-El814 said:

Feels like a missed opportunity to not say that the courts told this kid never mind. 


Please, please.  His filing was dismissed before trial because he failed to respond to a motion to dismiss so it never even got to a hearing.  The proper joke would be “Nirvana Child Porn Lawsuit Dies In Utero”

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, LazyPiranha said:


Please, please.  His filing was dismissed before trial because he failed to respond to a motion to dismiss so it never even got to a hearing.  The proper joke would be “Nirvana Child Porn Lawsuit Dies In Utero”


Maybe, hey, wait, you have no real complaint?

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, LazyPiranha said:


Please, please.  His filing was dismissed before trial because he failed to respond to a motion to dismiss so it never even got to a hearing.  The proper joke would be “Nirvana Child Porn Lawsuit Dies In Utero”


“Nirvana Child Porn Lawsuit Dies After Shotgun Blast To Face”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 8 months later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...