Misdee Posted January 10, 2022 Share Posted January 10, 2022 (edited) 27 minutes ago, tauzero said: The case would seem to fall at the first hurdle though, as throughout his life he has been celebrating and benefitting from being the world's most famous naked baby. It's one thing being a victim of sexual abuse and concealing it for years, it's another suddenly deciding that the photograph was effectively sexual abuse after flaunting it for decades. Well that may or may not be the case. There can be a gap between reality and perception. He had had the chance to put his argument to a judge, the judge has heard the evidence, we now have an outcome. It seems to me like American justice is working pretty well. Could I take this opportunity to mention that about thirty years ago I was introduced to the young man whose Converse baseball boot is seen tapping to the music at the beginning of the video for Smells Like Teen Spirit. He had the famous shoe hung on the back of his door in his dorm room at UC Santa Cruz. He was from Seattle and had been an extra along with loads of his friends from school. People used to knock on his door and ask to see the shoe. That shoe must be worth a few quid by now I expect. How traumatized he has been by the legacy of that experience I could not speculate. Edited January 10, 2022 by Misdee 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimR Posted January 11, 2022 Share Posted January 11, 2022 On 10/01/2022 at 11:31, Misdee said: The American legal system is based on four basic principles, one of which is known as "due process". That means an individual has the right to a fair hearing within the judicial system. Maybe the difference is; in the UK the solicitors have several duties towards the court as well as the client. Taking a case that's clearly frivolous wouldn't be acceptable. So the case probably wouldn't have made court. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Misdee Posted January 11, 2022 Share Posted January 11, 2022 (edited) 1 hour ago, TimR said: Maybe the difference is; in the UK the solicitors have several duties towards the court as well as the client. Taking a case that's clearly frivolous wouldn't be acceptable. So the case probably wouldn't have made court. I take your point entirely, but there is also the very real possibility that representation to the British legal system would have been different . Any litigation is tailored to the jurisdiction in which it's likely to be heard. Chances are that, yes, this young man was trying his luck at getting a few dollars out of his enforced fame. But for all we might look askance at court cases like this, there is no doubt that the image on the front of Nevermind is designed to shock and provoke. There is a degree of studied insouciance in putting a naked baby underwater on your album cover. Whoever did it knew it would be controversial. His grievances deserve to be considered, at least. And in any negotiation, you ask for more than you expect to get and negotiate down from there. If you claim child sex exploitation you might get at least some acknowledgement that no one considered how their actions might affect you in future when maybe they should have. It seems in this instance though, he has overplayed his hand somewhat. Bargaining, another perculiarity of the American legal system. Edited January 11, 2022 by Misdee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Misdee Posted January 11, 2022 Share Posted January 11, 2022 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Misdee said: Edited January 11, 2022 by Misdee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimR Posted January 11, 2022 Share Posted January 11, 2022 19 minutes ago, Misdee said: there is no doubt that the image on the front of Nevermind is designed to shock and provoke. In the UK, the only discussions I remember at the time were over whether a baby should be allowed underwater like that. No one said anything about it being naked. But that may be a European thing. Lots of baby and swimming experts concluded it was fine. Anyone who has taken their baby swimming will attest to the fact that they naturally hold their breath underwater like all mamals. I suspect it would have caused a huge Twitter storm though if Twitter had existed and the few Millennials around had been old enough to type. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctor J Posted January 13, 2022 Share Posted January 13, 2022 Hey, guess what... https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/nevermind-baby-is-still-suing-nirvana-1284031/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimR Posted January 13, 2022 Share Posted January 13, 2022 It doesn't work on any level. If a judge finds in favour of the image being child pornography; everyone who owns a copy of the CD gets put on the sex offenders register. Who knows what happens to any company that published or hosted the image... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Velarian Posted January 13, 2022 Share Posted January 13, 2022 2 minutes ago, TimR said: It doesn't work on any level. If a judge finds in favour of the image being child pornography; everyone who owns a copy of the CD gets put on the sex offenders register. Who knows what happens to any company that published or hosted the image... If anyone goes to have a look at the album cover to remind themselves of what the fuss is all about, could they also be charged with making a copy of an abusive image? Quite ridiculous but one to avoid I should think! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Downunderwonder Posted January 13, 2022 Share Posted January 13, 2022 On 12/01/2022 at 02:39, TimR said: I suspect it would have caused a huge Twitter storm though if Twitter had existed and the few Millennials around had been old enough to type. Definitely not a chicken and egg situation. Twits came long before Twitter. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tegs07 Posted January 14, 2022 Share Posted January 14, 2022 I always saw that album cover as a metaphor. Innocence being targeted and corrupted by money and greed. Which is exactly what happens and is happening in this legal case. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Misdee Posted January 14, 2022 Share Posted January 14, 2022 I would suggest that if this young man's image had been used in the same way by a someone who wasn't a creative artist whose work countless millions of people know and love folks might have a more open mind about the merits of his case. The fact that he cooperated with the anniversary shots is an irrelevance, by the way. He expressed his ambivalence at the time, and he is under no obligation to behave in a uniformly consistent manner than anybody else. People are inherently inconsistent. That inconsistency does not necessarily undermine his case. You like Nirvana, you like the album cover, and then this guy comes along looking for money and trying to spoil the party. What's his problem,? But if his image had been exploited in a comparable way by some massive corporation that people had no particular affinity for would you be so dismissive and so damning of his claims for injury? I think not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimR Posted January 14, 2022 Share Posted January 14, 2022 10 minutes ago, Misdee said: some massive corporation Like Warner Bros? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Misdee Posted January 14, 2022 Share Posted January 14, 2022 2 minutes ago, TimR said: Like Warner Bros? Exactly right. But this case isn't so much against the record company. It's against the artists. Both legally and in terms of public perception, it's against the creatives involved at the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.gif.9ad672bb8b84505709f76b39c8c256ec.gif)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.