Is this child pornography?

[Seevio]

Legally, no, but I couldn't resist the clickbait title.

Recently Spencer Elden (the baby in the picture) lost his case against Nirvana. The basis for his argument was that the album cover to Nevermind was child pornography and therefore he was owed damages. Unlike the Stella Lubbick case, where she was scalded by McDonalds coffee, this case appears to have no merit.

I was wondering if any of you consider the album cover to be obscene and if so, why? (I haven't posted a picture of the cover in case the answer is yes.)

 

[Drago]

He keeps having amgo and keeps getting the finger. I personally think his claimed trauma only extends as far as his wallet.

 

[markemark]

It was never about the pornography, but that this is following the guy around his whole life, done without his consent. Some people in his shoes would love the fame. Others would hate their nakedness being out there. Most would love the money from suing them.

 

[Drago]

That doesn't wash either. The only person perpetually associating his name with that image is Spencer Elden himself. Its his supposed struggle against the notoriety that made him so well known in the first place.

All he cares about is kerchingaling.

 

[All uphill]

If he said nothing would anyone associate him with the picture?

On the other hand I have some experience of parents earning money from their young children in advertising and felt it was sometimes very unhealthy.

 

[Moderators]

Mod note. We are unsure where this thread will go and prefer it to be taken to NCAP.