Given that it was legal content and his parents consented, why is it any different from "stage mothers" and others consenting to (and indeed pushing) their children into any number of ads, photo shoots, TV, film, etc.?
Otherwise any adult who felt embarrassment over their appearance in media as a minor could sue and parental consent to do those activities has no meaning.
ADDED: And if your response is that "But he was nude" then your beef is with the law that didn't make this illegal. There are of course borderline cases. See Brooke Shields in "Pretty Baby" for example which caused quite a bit of controversy at the time. (And, indeed, as I wrote elsewhere, I'm pretty sure no major record label would go near this cover with a 100 foot pole today not because it would likely be illegal but because it would be a lightning rod.)
Otherwise any adult who felt embarrassment over their appearance in media as a minor could sue and parental consent to do those activities has no meaning.
ADDED: And if your response is that "But he was nude" then your beef is with the law that didn't make this illegal. There are of course borderline cases. See Brooke Shields in "Pretty Baby" for example which caused quite a bit of controversy at the time. (And, indeed, as I wrote elsewhere, I'm pretty sure no major record label would go near this cover with a 100 foot pole today not because it would likely be illegal but because it would be a lightning rod.)