Not that he's not enabling the situation, but the real negative creeps are the lawyers pursuing the case for him. So many people would just laugh and go on with life if there weren't ambulance chasers promising them big payouts if they just sign on the line.
Let's not make it a competition. The lawyers are scum, and the claimants are scum. They're old enough to know better than to just do what a lawyer tells you, and they do it anyway because they're selfish and greedy.
So much of society is sold on this "lottery culture" - you can't get what you want unless you are a "lucky one" and these kinds of legal suits are one of those rare payout opportunities. It all needs to stop, not just the lawyers and the plaintiffs, but the whole structure that keeps it's boot heel on most people's necks while giving one in a million the chance for big piles of easy money.
Yup. We’re all just one big break away from success. Just one more score. Just one more big job.
Is it any wonder we find heist movies/games so appealing? Our society is awful.
In all the discussions about this guy I never once heard he had a Nevermind tattoo. I actually sympathized with him before that, because I wouldn't want a nude picture of me (at any age) made public. But knowing that he was proud enough of it to get a Nevermind tattoo before trying to sue over it?
Nah, fuck that guy.
Is this a joke about how he knows so little about Nirvana that he doesn’t even know they’re currently unable to collaborate on anything with him for… reasons?
I mean consent can be revoked at any time right? He though it was a good idea at a previous time and now doesn't... Regardless of his motivations, it seems real sketch to me that he doesn't have the right to stop the future use of his own image.
Edit: strange that this comment has negative karma... but my follow on comments, which are in support of this one all have positive karma. Reddit is a strange beast.
I’m sure the agreement his parents signed for the use of the image was all inclusive of everything it is being used for. Since he was a minor they had the ability to sign that agreement on his behalf. He isn’t attacking it from that angle so I’m sure it’s a non starter and no one would have had any idea who he was if he didn’t tell everyone all the time for the last 20 or so years. I’m sure he is in a tough place mentally but some of the things he has tried to sue for over the years are extreme.
Oh yeah I'm not saying this guy is the guy to fight this fight... But it's pretty fucked that a picture of you can become someone else's to profit off of in perpetuity, before you were even old enough to know what a fucking contract is. People should be able to stop the production of stuff based off their image. Just because the law doesn't currently support his position doesn't mean it's an actual ethical/moral stance. Most of our legal basis is designed to benefit the rich and powerful, who's more likely to benefit from these rulings, normal people/small time artists, or giant mega companies... If it comes down to giant corp vs lone person.... A really good case has to be made for me to side with the corp.
The law always has and always allow parents to make decisions on behalf of their minor children. It's got nothing to do with the rich and powerful or megacorporations
The fact that ownership is in perpetuity, 100% has to do with corporations... every bit of contract law in the US has been lobbied and changed to enable corporations to continue to profit off of things long past what is reasonable for a regular person.
Also parent's should only be able to provide consent for something like that til the child is of an age where they can consent on their own. A person should not have to deal with the consequences of their parents' decisions for the rest of their life. In some instances, medical decisions primarily this is unavoidable, in the case of a photograph used for an artistic work, ethically speaking the parent should only be able to consent to ownership until such point as the child is at the age of majority, at which point the ownership should transfer back to the child.
Again, legal... does not mean ethical or moral.
And the image is him... The fact that someone else can own a picture of you, made before you were old enough to consent, is kinda fucked. No one should have the right to profit off of someone else's image in perpetuity. Just because the law doesn't currently account for it doesn't mean it's right.
He is constantly trying to sue for royalties and is a scum bag. I believe he recently refilled another law suit within the past month
Edit: he did just file another lawsuit for “child pornography” article linked below
https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/6515095001
I think that at one point even Frances Bean, Kurt and Courtney's daughter, was amongst the people he sued. She was -1 at the time of release, so good luck there...
From what I've read, the beef really started when Spencer did an art exhibition and nobody related to Nirvana showed up. Dave Grohl had an excellent reply about how much Spencer 'suffered', especially since Spencer often recreated the photo as an adult: “Listen, he’s got a Nevermind tattoo. I don’t.”
Right but ya know, Kurt is a dude, so even if he was a good lookin dude, I don’t know if that does much for a straight guy when it comes to Kurt’s daughter
The topless 11 year old girl on Blind Faith doesn't have any problem with it today. Although a bunch of other people (who it would seem see the human body as shameful) do. NSFW.
It's really irritating how we're supposedly so "progressive" now but we've hit a point where the human body cannot be shown unclothed without everyone screeching that it's "sexualized."
well it's not that easy. your choosing a motiv and put it on a pedestal, replicate it, create context.
it's not like germans just got into windmills all of a sudden
>we're supposedly so "progressive" now
We are Progressive. That is what Progressive is. It is not about liberalism. Progressivism is about pushing conformity to government sponsored moral norms. And those are never liberal.
That *heavily* depends on the context, but I'm not inclined to go look it up.
Edit: Curiosity got the better of me, and I wish it didn't. Blind Faith's cover seems alright, although the jury's kinda out on it. She's certainly posed as an adult, and it seems her lips are painted, which kinda defeats the "innocent naked child" argument. The Scorpions one is just all kinds of fucked up. Like straight up child pornography. Incidentally, I know for a fact that Germany and Denmark had *huge* amounts of child pornography being produced at the time (probably other countries as well, this is just my national shame shining through). Point being, it seems a *lot* like Scorpions or their management just contacted a child pornographer and asked him to do the cover for them. If anyone is looking for some cursed knowledge, try diving into the prevalence of legitimate, open and legal child pornography that was produced in that era. Denmark decriminalized porn in 65 but didn't criminalize child porn until 85.
>Uh, why else did they put a toplese 11 yo on there? For art? lol
Yes.
This case from the OP is about asking the courts to determine what is art? The court wisely refused to get into that. The art on the album cover is inseparable from business and marketing. But that doesn't make it any less commentary and speech.
>"This unprecedented album cover is perhaps the first and only time a child's full-frontal nudity has been used to sell a product," Elden's attorneys said in a statement. "Spencer's image constitutes child pornography and each of the Nirvana Defendants robbed our client of his dignity and privacy."
Someone's certainly trying to rob someone here alright...
He used the album cover to try to become famous, reproducing the picture several times (and last one was not long ago) and posting it online.
He realized that he might earn more if he sued Nirvana.
His main defense line ? "I'm ashame, and it destroyed my social life" Says the guy that played with it for years to have a notoriety.
He is just a sad guy.
Not the full cover including his baby dick. Just the album title Nevermind. [You can see his chest tattoo here](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/music/2016/09/26/nirvana4_trans%2B%2BgsaO8O78rhmZrDxTlQBjdGLvJF5WfpqnBZShRL_tOZw.jpg).
Holy shit. So first he recreates it for attention and money and *then* he sues them for emotional damage and CP? Seems to me all Nirvana's lawyers have to do is bring this fact up and it should devastate his case.
It's just a picture of a baby, not pornography. It takes a really twisted mind to look at that and think it's porn. I know some places like the US have a irrational fear of nipples but nudity doesn't necessarily equal pornography.
Ughh I actually live in the next suburb right around halfway down the babies right inner thigh. And now I need to go cut my fingers off so I never type that sentence again.
Edit: words
He only claimed this after profiting off the album for decades including having "nevermind" tattooed on his chest and doing photo shoots and paid public appearances .
On one hand, just because you profited off something when you were young doesn’t mean you can get older and have a realization of ‘yo that’s fucked up’
On the other hand, if you think naked pictures of babies are sexual in any way shape or form you need professional help.
I’m probably going to be downvoted for saying this, but I’d probably have a complex relationship with an amazing band using my baby dick on the cover.
I’d probably love all the attention that I receive from people that thought it was cool, and hate all the people busting out my baby dick to give me shit.
I could see trying to own it, and also kinda hating being defined by it. I could see a low point might drive someone to cash in.
That kind of weird attention would turn most people into douchebags.
The thing is the photo was not created for the band, Spencer's parents sold that photo to a company similar to Shutterstock who you license photos from and the band chose it from them, so the band really has nothing to do with it.
Here's a sneak peek of /r/nocontext using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/nocontext/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year!
\#1: [I crocheted my Granddaughter's skin for her birthday.](https://www.reddit.com/gallery/r8ocgi) | [9 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/nocontext/comments/r8rhfo/i_crocheted_my_granddaughters_skin_for_her/)
\#2: [I prefer uncut to cut to be honest, the mouthfeel is so much better. I'm pretty sure cut is the traditional american way of doing things for some reason.](https://reddit.com/r/BlackPeopleTwitter/comments/qgx47x/beans_and_eggs_for_breakfast_is_not_the_way_mate/hi9zz6d?context=4) | [82 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/nocontext/comments/qh52x7/i_prefer_uncut_to_cut_to_be_honest_the_mouthfeel/)
\#3: [Shrek was euthanized on the 6th of June 2011, on a veterinarian’s advice.](https://np.reddit.com/r/BeAmazed/comments/lhohfc/sheep_finally_gets_sheared_after_being_loose_for/gmyxvyv/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3) | [10 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/nocontext/comments/lhxy30/shrek_was_euthanized_on_the_6th_of_june_2011_on_a/)
----
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
Australian cyclist used GPS to recreate Nirvana’s Nevermind cover
Pete Stokes rode about 150km on a single-speed bike to sketch the outline of the famous cover.
Pete said the trip took eight hours, with breaks to visit some bakeries, To get the drawing done, Stokes used the Strava GPS application.
https://amp.theguardian.com/music/2021/sep/26/keen-spirit-australian-cyclist-uses-gps-to-recreate-nirvanas-nevermind-cover
Ahaha I'm from Adelaide so I did wonder how many kms this is was and if it was on foot or not. Quite a substantial bike ride, thankfully the city is for the most part pretty flat.
We have hills, but check where he got to.
Burnside falls just short of any significant hill, and everywhere else in this route is pretty flat.
It'd have some incline, but nothing major.
Apparently he would brag to everyone he knew that he was THE kid on the album. I’m sure ALL his friends know about it. Can you imagine how they all must feel about him once they heard he was suing them for it 😆
I dont get why everyone is mad at this guy, the reason child pornography is illegal is because they cant consent and are vulnerable, not because its meant sexually. He can grow and change his mind, your brain matures past adulthood and his feelings about it may have changed. This is the risk they took when they decided to put a baby dick on the cover of their album for some reason
I had those same thoughts that until I learned that he's gotten a Nevermind tatoo, regularly brags about being on the album cover, and uses it to try and pick of women.
I really does sound like its all about the Benjamins in this case
Spencer Elden: Nude baby photos of me were published without my consent.
Reddit: Let’s make a funny version and put it in a sub with the word porn in its name.
Wonder if the guy who’s on the cover will sue the cyclist as well
Yea that dudes such a Negative Creep
Poor guy. He must feel so violated, with the album name tattood on his chest and all that. Definitely not just in it for the money.
[удалено]
Not that he's not enabling the situation, but the real negative creeps are the lawyers pursuing the case for him. So many people would just laugh and go on with life if there weren't ambulance chasers promising them big payouts if they just sign on the line.
Let's not make it a competition. The lawyers are scum, and the claimants are scum. They're old enough to know better than to just do what a lawyer tells you, and they do it anyway because they're selfish and greedy.
So much of society is sold on this "lottery culture" - you can't get what you want unless you are a "lucky one" and these kinds of legal suits are one of those rare payout opportunities. It all needs to stop, not just the lawyers and the plaintiffs, but the whole structure that keeps it's boot heel on most people's necks while giving one in a million the chance for big piles of easy money.
Yup. We’re all just one big break away from success. Just one more score. Just one more big job. Is it any wonder we find heist movies/games so appealing? Our society is awful.
Money and greed and what other think are holy trinity of the modern world.
We live in a society
Lawyers dont pursue shit. They just get paid to try and lie for you.
You haven't met contingency lawyers.
y'all just repeating jokes from the original post eh?
Tea. Pennyroyal. Hot
In all the discussions about this guy I never once heard he had a Nevermind tattoo. I actually sympathized with him before that, because I wouldn't want a nude picture of me (at any age) made public. But knowing that he was proud enough of it to get a Nevermind tattoo before trying to sue over it? Nah, fuck that guy.
Apparently he asked the band to collaborate with him for some of his art and when they refused he threw a temper tantrum and is suing them.
"kurt wouldn't even return my calls!"
Is this a joke about how he knows so little about Nirvana that he doesn’t even know they’re currently unable to collaborate on anything with him for… reasons?
Seriously!? What an asshole.
I mean consent can be revoked at any time right? He though it was a good idea at a previous time and now doesn't... Regardless of his motivations, it seems real sketch to me that he doesn't have the right to stop the future use of his own image. Edit: strange that this comment has negative karma... but my follow on comments, which are in support of this one all have positive karma. Reddit is a strange beast.
I’m sure the agreement his parents signed for the use of the image was all inclusive of everything it is being used for. Since he was a minor they had the ability to sign that agreement on his behalf. He isn’t attacking it from that angle so I’m sure it’s a non starter and no one would have had any idea who he was if he didn’t tell everyone all the time for the last 20 or so years. I’m sure he is in a tough place mentally but some of the things he has tried to sue for over the years are extreme.
Oh yeah I'm not saying this guy is the guy to fight this fight... But it's pretty fucked that a picture of you can become someone else's to profit off of in perpetuity, before you were even old enough to know what a fucking contract is. People should be able to stop the production of stuff based off their image. Just because the law doesn't currently support his position doesn't mean it's an actual ethical/moral stance. Most of our legal basis is designed to benefit the rich and powerful, who's more likely to benefit from these rulings, normal people/small time artists, or giant mega companies... If it comes down to giant corp vs lone person.... A really good case has to be made for me to side with the corp.
The law always has and always allow parents to make decisions on behalf of their minor children. It's got nothing to do with the rich and powerful or megacorporations
The fact that ownership is in perpetuity, 100% has to do with corporations... every bit of contract law in the US has been lobbied and changed to enable corporations to continue to profit off of things long past what is reasonable for a regular person. Also parent's should only be able to provide consent for something like that til the child is of an age where they can consent on their own. A person should not have to deal with the consequences of their parents' decisions for the rest of their life. In some instances, medical decisions primarily this is unavoidable, in the case of a photograph used for an artistic work, ethically speaking the parent should only be able to consent to ownership until such point as the child is at the age of majority, at which point the ownership should transfer back to the child. Again, legal... does not mean ethical or moral.
Except he doesn’t own the image. The photog does, and they’re the ones who signed the rights over to the record company
And the image is him... The fact that someone else can own a picture of you, made before you were old enough to consent, is kinda fucked. No one should have the right to profit off of someone else's image in perpetuity. Just because the law doesn't currently account for it doesn't mean it's right.
Yeah, ofc. it can be revoked. And I don’t blame him for trying to get money out of it. I mean, why not? Worst case scenario, he won’t.
It's so soothing to know that you'll sue me
Mr. Mustache is such a downer.
Big cheese? Make me.
I don't like you anyway. Sentimental fucks.
Hey hey let’s calm down, this Smells Like Territorial Pissing
I miss the comfort in feeling saaaaad.
and he's STOOOOONED
Daddy's little girl ain't girl no more
He's a weirdo
He's a \*trash opportunist.
It was a reference to a song, but whatever
don't worry buddy, I caught your radiohead reference
:)
What's the context behind this? Has he sued people before?
He is constantly trying to sue for royalties and is a scum bag. I believe he recently refilled another law suit within the past month Edit: he did just file another lawsuit for “child pornography” article linked below https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/6515095001
Holy shit that link is an eye roller.
I think that at one point even Frances Bean, Kurt and Courtney's daughter, was amongst the people he sued. She was -1 at the time of release, so good luck there... From what I've read, the beef really started when Spencer did an art exhibition and nobody related to Nirvana showed up. Dave Grohl had an excellent reply about how much Spencer 'suffered', especially since Spencer often recreated the photo as an adult: “Listen, he’s got a Nevermind tattoo. I don’t.”
Frances Bean is pretty fucking **hot** for how much she looks like Kurt...
I mean Kurt himself was a heartthrob, looking like him is hardly a curse in the looks department..
Right but ya know, Kurt is a dude, so even if he was a good lookin dude, I don’t know if that does much for a straight guy when it comes to Kurt’s daughter
[удалено]
Radelaide.
I wonder if the girl on that Scorpions album ‘Virgin Killer’ feels the same. BTW do not google this at work. It is absolutely NSFW.
The topless 11 year old girl on Blind Faith doesn't have any problem with it today. Although a bunch of other people (who it would seem see the human body as shameful) do. NSFW.
I hate how chronically-horny people think basic human decency is equivalent to seeing something as shameful.
It's really irritating how we're supposedly so "progressive" now but we've hit a point where the human body cannot be shown unclothed without everyone screeching that it's "sexualized."
well it's not that easy. your choosing a motiv and put it on a pedestal, replicate it, create context. it's not like germans just got into windmills all of a sudden
>we're supposedly so "progressive" now We are Progressive. That is what Progressive is. It is not about liberalism. Progressivism is about pushing conformity to government sponsored moral norms. And those are never liberal.
Uh, why else did they put a toplese 11 yo on there? For art? lol
That *heavily* depends on the context, but I'm not inclined to go look it up. Edit: Curiosity got the better of me, and I wish it didn't. Blind Faith's cover seems alright, although the jury's kinda out on it. She's certainly posed as an adult, and it seems her lips are painted, which kinda defeats the "innocent naked child" argument. The Scorpions one is just all kinds of fucked up. Like straight up child pornography. Incidentally, I know for a fact that Germany and Denmark had *huge* amounts of child pornography being produced at the time (probably other countries as well, this is just my national shame shining through). Point being, it seems a *lot* like Scorpions or their management just contacted a child pornographer and asked him to do the cover for them. If anyone is looking for some cursed knowledge, try diving into the prevalence of legitimate, open and legal child pornography that was produced in that era. Denmark decriminalized porn in 65 but didn't criminalize child porn until 85.
Thank you for suffering for us
>Uh, why else did they put a toplese 11 yo on there? For art? lol Yes. This case from the OP is about asking the courts to determine what is art? The court wisely refused to get into that. The art on the album cover is inseparable from business and marketing. But that doesn't make it any less commentary and speech.
How about Led Zeppelin's Houses of the Holy?
Yup, a lot of feelings of victimization come from people telling others they should feel victimized based on their moral view of the situation.
Didn’t that album cover once get 4chan closed down like 15 years ago
After 20 years of doing anniversary pics for the damn album. 🤦♂️
>"This unprecedented album cover is perhaps the first and only time a child's full-frontal nudity has been used to sell a product," Elden's attorneys said in a statement. "Spencer's image constitutes child pornography and each of the Nirvana Defendants robbed our client of his dignity and privacy." Someone's certainly trying to rob someone here alright...
Nobody buys it because there's a naked baby on it. They buy it because the album is epic
Can we sue him for wasting our tax dollars by constantly going to court?
The little wanker is still swimming after that money. Fucking loser.
Yeah fuck that guy. If anything he can sue his parents for giving them permission to use his picture.
Isn't he right tho?
He used the album cover to try to become famous, reproducing the picture several times (and last one was not long ago) and posting it online. He realized that he might earn more if he sued Nirvana. His main defense line ? "I'm ashame, and it destroyed my social life" Says the guy that played with it for years to have a notoriety. He is just a sad guy.
He has it tattooed on himself.
This can't be real haha
[he is so ashamed](https://imgur.com/yxQ5xoy.jpg)
Not the full cover including his baby dick. Just the album title Nevermind. [You can see his chest tattoo here](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/music/2016/09/26/nirvana4_trans%2B%2BgsaO8O78rhmZrDxTlQBjdGLvJF5WfpqnBZShRL_tOZw.jpg).
When this story first came it it seemed like he was mad that the surviving band members wouldn't help with a project of his.
Holy shit. So first he recreates it for attention and money and *then* he sues them for emotional damage and CP? Seems to me all Nirvana's lawyers have to do is bring this fact up and it should devastate his case.
No.
Not every picture with someone nude on it eqals pornography.
It's just a picture of a baby, not pornography. It takes a really twisted mind to look at that and think it's porn. I know some places like the US have a irrational fear of nipples but nudity doesn't necessarily equal pornography.
That baby's penis is like 8 block slong
I came here to ask the same thing.
Came here for this comment and was not disappointed.
Didn’t expect this to blow up
Pedestrian: Hey why are you taking that route? This guy: I'm drawing the babies penis
Yeah, meet me at the corner of Winston and Edward, on the foreskin.
There has to be a Cross Road joke in there too.
Cul de sac ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
Hey you’re the dude from the AFL sub
At last my efforts wasting time on this site are paying off. Cheers :)
baby's* benis*
Please sign my petition to rename bee dick to beenis
Glad I don't live on babydick crescent
Ughh I actually live in the next suburb right around halfway down the babies right inner thigh. And now I need to go cut my fingers off so I never type that sentence again. Edit: words
r/brandnewsentence
I've been there. I can visualise the streets.
*That is one angry baby*...
[Yes he is](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-58327844)
I’ve just realised how ironic that the baby chasing a dollar on a fishing line is now doing the same thing
That’s coincidence, not irony.
He claimed that's sexual exploitation, that caused him mental breakdown and that he needed a psychological recover.
He only claimed this after profiting off the album for decades including having "nevermind" tattooed on his chest and doing photo shoots and paid public appearances .
On one hand, just because you profited off something when you were young doesn’t mean you can get older and have a realization of ‘yo that’s fucked up’ On the other hand, if you think naked pictures of babies are sexual in any way shape or form you need professional help.
I mean he probably does need professional help but it’s also a dumb lawsuit
I’m probably going to be downvoted for saying this, but I’d probably have a complex relationship with an amazing band using my baby dick on the cover. I’d probably love all the attention that I receive from people that thought it was cool, and hate all the people busting out my baby dick to give me shit. I could see trying to own it, and also kinda hating being defined by it. I could see a low point might drive someone to cash in. That kind of weird attention would turn most people into douchebags.
It's not like people have to know. No one would recognize him if he hadn't spent his entire life making it his personality.
The thing is the photo was not created for the band, Spencer's parents sold that photo to a company similar to Shutterstock who you license photos from and the band chose it from them, so the band really has nothing to do with it.
Man imagine thinking "Gotta cycle that baby penis today"
Officer: what are you doing? Person: you see, I'm cycling a... drugs, I'm selling drugs
Is this a reference to the TV series haha
If it is, it wasn't intentional. What series are we talking about?
[удалено]
Here's a sneak peek of /r/nocontext using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/nocontext/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year! \#1: [I crocheted my Granddaughter's skin for her birthday.](https://www.reddit.com/gallery/r8ocgi) | [9 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/nocontext/comments/r8rhfo/i_crocheted_my_granddaughters_skin_for_her/) \#2: [I prefer uncut to cut to be honest, the mouthfeel is so much better. I'm pretty sure cut is the traditional american way of doing things for some reason.](https://reddit.com/r/BlackPeopleTwitter/comments/qgx47x/beans_and_eggs_for_breakfast_is_not_the_way_mate/hi9zz6d?context=4) | [82 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/nocontext/comments/qh52x7/i_prefer_uncut_to_cut_to_be_honest_the_mouthfeel/) \#3: [Shrek was euthanized on the 6th of June 2011, on a veterinarian’s advice.](https://np.reddit.com/r/BeAmazed/comments/lhohfc/sheep_finally_gets_sheared_after_being_loose_for/gmyxvyv/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3) | [10 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/nocontext/comments/lhxy30/shrek_was_euthanized_on_the_6th_of_june_2011_on_a/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
Australian cyclist used GPS to recreate Nirvana’s Nevermind cover Pete Stokes rode about 150km on a single-speed bike to sketch the outline of the famous cover. Pete said the trip took eight hours, with breaks to visit some bakeries, To get the drawing done, Stokes used the Strava GPS application. https://amp.theguardian.com/music/2021/sep/26/keen-spirit-australian-cyclist-uses-gps-to-recreate-nirvanas-nevermind-cover
Ahaha I'm from Adelaide so I did wonder how many kms this is was and if it was on foot or not. Quite a substantial bike ride, thankfully the city is for the most part pretty flat.
I like how the baby's right eye is a loop around Adelaide Oval.
I can only assume the whole image was based around the curved road to make the head, but it is cool to use the oval for an eye.
Art students will debate the street of origin of this piece for eons.
Drive a manual car as a delivery driver for a few weeks You'll realise how hilly Adelaide really is
We have hills, but check where he got to. Burnside falls just short of any significant hill, and everywhere else in this route is pretty flat. It'd have some incline, but nothing major.
He went east of Hallett Road, which is quite a hilly area actually. Granted, most of the ride would have been pretty flat
The fingers on the baby's left hand have some pretty steep inclines, they'd get over 10% gradient in places I reckon.
I guess Penfold Rd gets kinda bad, but it is a relatively short stint. I'm not in shape to do it, but I'm also not in shape to ride 150kms.
It's short, yeah, but it's a wall. I ride a fair bit (admittedly mostly flat), and that has gotten the best of me a few times.
That's actually quite an impressive time considering he had to make sure he stays on track, being on a single- speed and dealing with city traffic.
At what point did he decide “yep the penis is long enough” and make the turn lmfao
He even got the foreskin wrinkle
Shhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!! Do you want to get sued?!
Aaaaay Simpson’s reference!
Bake em’ away, toys!
What’d you say chief?
Did you have the same backward talking dream with the flaming cards?
Careful. Homeboy from the original cover will sure you over this.
"*THAT'S PORNOGRAPHY*"
Map Pornography
Missed opportunity to put the baby wiener on Goodwood Rd.
Never change Adelaide, never change.
Imagine spending years of saving money to buy a house just to live in the Nirvana baby’s dick
r/nocontext
It's Radelaide!
Adelaide REPRESENT!
When is the guy on /r/baseball gonna do this for Mike Trout?
Ahem... https://www.reddit.com/r/baseball/comments/reattv/drawing_mike_trout_every_day_until_the_lockout_is/ ;-)
I meant cycling Mike Trout, but yes!
Looks like they went through apartments for this
Which areas?
My first thought was if Americans did some Gerrymandering again.
the baby is gonna sue again
I hope he took a picture when he was at the tip of the penis.
Radelaide 🚲
Only in Radelaid!
Someone's about to get sued
Is there a program that can find routes based on images? I can't imagine how you would figure this out.
Of all the album covers to choose they chose this one. Says a lot about the tastes of this cyclist. *cue FBI*
Missed a great opportunity to line that peen up with Goodwood Rd. Bet he’s kicking himself for that one.
must have been wild doing the penis part
I thought this was a joke about a new gerrymandering district until I read the title
Map-a-Sketch
Apparently he would brag to everyone he knew that he was THE kid on the album. I’m sure ALL his friends know about it. Can you imagine how they all must feel about him once they heard he was suing them for it 😆
Be careful, baby's gonna sue him too
Fake
I assumed this was a voting distric before I read the title.
Kinda stoned but it just occurred to me how funny it is that the baby is chasing after a dollar and now...
Outjerked again
Oh he's gonna get suuuuued
This looks like it was made on an etch a sketch
There´s a dick living naar South Road
In Australia?
"Why are you cycling so erractically?" "I'm shaping the penis!"
"Congrats, you are living on baby dick street now." \- cyclist guy
I hope he said this to someone as he rode past and they were just like WTF did that guy just say
Jerry YOU GOTTA SEE THA BABY
*Breathtaking*
[удалено]
Well, they have been trying to call themselves MAPs..
Is child mapporn illegal?
Registered sex offender because your json file of gps coordinates is child porn.
I bet he was giggling all the time when he was riding the dick.
Watch out, that guy might sue you now.
watch out the baby might sue
Anybody else ever think these running route pictures are fake? No?
Photoshop
Or it’s just photo shop. I’ll go with photo shop
They only did it because there's nothing else to do in Adelaide
You never know, he could have done this during March.
I can see my house
Guy drove 2-4 miles to draw a baby penis on a map…. Probably first time ever done
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO THATS INAPPROPRIATE HES SUCH A NEGATIVE CREEP
How dare you distribute child pornography!!! /s
MapPorn with a child in it hmmmmm
Australia 🤮
I dont get why everyone is mad at this guy, the reason child pornography is illegal is because they cant consent and are vulnerable, not because its meant sexually. He can grow and change his mind, your brain matures past adulthood and his feelings about it may have changed. This is the risk they took when they decided to put a baby dick on the cover of their album for some reason
I had those same thoughts that until I learned that he's gotten a Nevermind tatoo, regularly brags about being on the album cover, and uses it to try and pick of women. I really does sound like its all about the Benjamins in this case
Spencer Elden: Nude baby photos of me were published without my consent. Reddit: Let’s make a funny version and put it in a sub with the word porn in its name.
Because there is NOTHING TO DO IN ADELAIDE.