[jstarfish]

If you Photoshop the penis out, there would be nothing remarkable about the cover. It was child exploitation as a marketing gimmick.

I think the Scorpions did something similar with putting an underage girl on the Virgin Killer album, but that may have been non-photographic (not looking it up).

Decades later, Nirvana is still a topic of discussion because of it (and still earning royalties), while the kid in question whose image is used in perpetuity gets told to pound sand because he missed an arbitrary deadline.

We don't need to exploit children as a form of creative expression. We just don't. Depravity is not cultural enrichment.

[mablopoule]

If you let the penis visible, there is still not that much remarkable. The picture was mainly about a baby swimming toward a bill used as a bait.

There is at least one picture of me (not on social media, admittedly), as a toddler, buck naked in a pool with another toddler. It was (and still is) and innocent picture even with the visible genitalia. So no, it's not automatically "depravity" to show nude people, even kids.

Don't be mistaken, I'm not for child exploration, stuff like kids beauty pageant, or over-exposed young people are downright creepy, but I'm reacting at the idea of making any representation of kids taboo.

[akaij]

> If you Photoshop the penis out, there would be nothing remarkable about the cover.

Says you.

> Decades later, Nirvana is still a topic of discussion because of it (and still earning royalties), ...

I think the album's popularity and the royalties aren't solely attributable to the cover :)

> We don't need to exploit children as a form of creative expression...

There is no pornography, no sexual abuse, in fact there's nothing sexual about it at all, and the parents were paid for the photo. Please help me understand how it constitutes exploitation.