Nirvana Sued By The Baby From "Nevermind" Album Cover

[TTL News 308]

Quote

 

Spencer Elden, the man who was photographed as a baby on the album cover for Nirvana's Nevermind, is suing the band alleging sexual exploitation.

The cover depicts Elden as a four-month-old in a swimming pool, grasping for a dollar bill that's being dangled in front of him on a fishing line.

Now 30, Elden says his parents never signed a release authorising the use of his image on the album.

He also alleges the nude image constitutes child pornography.

"The images exposed Spencer's intimate body part and lasciviously displayed Spencer's genitals from the time he was an infant to the present day," legal papers filed in California claim.

Non-sexualised photos of infants are generally not considered child pornography under US law. 

However, Elden's lawyer, Robert Y. Lewis, argues that the inclusion of the dollar bill (which was superimposed after the photograph was taken) makes the minor seem "like a sex worker".

The legal case also alleges that Nirvana had promised to cover Elden's genitals with a sticker, but the agreement was not upheld.

Elden alleges his "true identity and legal name are forever tied to the commercial sexual exploitation he experienced as a minor which has been distributed and sold worldwide from the time he was a baby to the present day".

He claims he "has suffered and will continue to suffer lifelong damages" as a result of the artwork, including "extreme and permanent emotional distress" as well as "interference with his normal development and educational progress" and "medical and psychological treatment".

He is asking for damages of at least $150,000 (£109,000) from each of the 15 defendants, who include surviving band members Dave Grohl and Krist Novoselic; the managers of Kurt Cobain's estate; Cobain's former wife Courtney Love; and photographer Kirk Weddle.

Representatives for Nirvana and their record labels have yet to respond to the claims.

 

See the rest of the article here.

[Chris 2,168]

[MsKreed 1,185]

23 minutes ago, Chris said:

From the age range in those recreations, I'd guess that he (and perhaps his parents) exploited the image as a kid, to enjoy the attention and pseudo fame. And I imagine as a kid, that would make him feel cool.

If as an adult, he realized that if he had a nickel in royalties for each of the 30 million copies sold, he'd be rich. If he didn't have a legal standing to litigate the commercial use, this was the next best thing?

For the most part I do feel bad for a lot of kids in the entertainment business. Even with newer protection laws, the more successful they are, the more adults are likely to be controlling their lives without 'informed consent' from child.  

[Chris 2,168]

He should be suing his parents then, if they're the ones who made the deal, signed the contract, and got paid. 

[MsKreed 1,185]

29 minutes ago, Chris said:

He should be suing his parents then, if they're the ones who made the deal, signed the contract, and got paid. 

I agree with you on that, unless there's proof of either that these allegations are true:

1 hour ago, TwinTiersLiving said:

Now 30, Elden says his parents never signed a release authorising the use of his image on the album.

 

1 hour ago, TwinTiersLiving said:

The legal case also alleges that Nirvana had promised to cover Elden's genitals with a sticker, but the agreement was not upheld.

In which case, it would make me wonder why (or if) his parents didn't take action way back when.

[Chris 2,168]

I find it very hard to believe that the label’s attorneys allowed that to happen without a release being signed. Even if his parents were stupid and didn’t ask for payment of some kind.

[MsKreed 1,185]

It sounds like the parents got $200 bucks. 

 

This is a more personal (and human) take than citing the black n' white legalese of the lawsuit....sort of the same kind of double-edged feelings as I was imagining. Part cool, part financial compensation, as well as some element of genuine personal embarrassment.

Likely similar (late onset) embarrassment as any 17 yr old's feelings about naked baby pictures showing up at a family reunion, etc.....stuff you may have thought was okay (or even funny/cute) as a younger kid can take on new light as you mature.

But on a far greater scale.

Quote

 

"Stuff happens like random cool situations where I get paid $500 just to go hang out," Elden said in 2008. He also mentioned getting an internship with artist Shepard Fairey as a result of a radio interview he gave about the album.

But Elden's relationship with the photo and the album's success is complicated. As far back as 2008, he told MTV News that "it's kind of creepy [to think] that that many people have seen me naked. I feel like I'm the world's biggest porn star." And in an interview with Time for the album's 25th anniversary, he said, "[When] I go to a baseball game and think about it: 'Man, everybody at this baseball game has probably seen my little baby penis,' I feel like I got part of my human rights revoked."

Perhaps more relevant for this lawsuit, Elden has also expressed a longstanding frustration with being excluded from the album's success. The Time interview mentions that he had pursued but didn't follow through with earlier legal action against Geffen Records, saying that "it's hard not to get upset when you hear how much money was involved."

 

Full Story HERE 

Edited August 28, 2021 by MsKreed

[Chris 2,168]

That confirms it, the parents were idiots.

As far as the world seeing his baby penis, dude needs to embrace that. Maybe use it as a pickup line. LOL

[MsKreed 1,185]

26 minutes ago, Chris said:

That confirms it, the parents were idiots.

Yep...sounds like prior to age 17 he'd already "pursued but didn't follow through with earlier legal action".

Makes you wonder if the parents needed to act on his behalf as a minor and didn't want to acknowledge their part in it....or something like, he'd have needed to name the parents as respondents as well?

26 minutes ago, Chris said:

As far as the world seeing his baby penis, dude needs to embrace that. Maybe use it as a pickup line. LOL

LOL...That's one angle 😄 And sounds like he did that to some degree.

On the other hand, how happy would you (or a lot of young men) be to embrace it if baby penis pics of you surfaced for the public to see? Say, like on your band page or something.

I do think it's unlikely that the record company, eta al, being sued really did anything illegal....but like a lot of child entertainment situations, not much concern for the kids' long term well-being. 

Edited August 28, 2021 by MsKreed

[Chris 2,168]

2 hours ago, MsKreed said:

On the other hand, how happy would you (or a lot of young men) be to embrace it if baby penis pics of you surfaced for the public to see?

If no one knew it was me, I don’t think I’d care. And so long as there’d been, uh, growth since.

Doesn’t mean I’ll be uploading dick pics to our page anytime soon though LOL

[Kevin 336]

I read that part of the reason he is upset is because he help an art exhibit or something and invited David Grohl and Krist Novoselic the former members of Nirvana and they blew him off. So he is upset over that. 

 

https://news.artnet.com/art-world/spencer-elden-sues-nirvana-over-cover-image-2002468

[Chris 2,168]

Leave it to a bass player:

[Chris 2,168]

I thought this was an interesting response:

Quote

 

Dave Grohl hasn’t “spent too much time thinking about” the child exploitation lawsuit filed by Spencer Elden, who was famously photographed as a baby for Nirvana’s iconic Nevermind album cover. However, Grohl would like to point out that he’s not the one with the Nevermind tattoo.

The former Nirvana drummer was asked about the lawsuit in a new interview with Craig Jenkins of New York. Seemingly heeding the advice of his attorneys, Grohl sidestepped the question as best he could, saying, “I don’t know that I can speak on it because I haven’t spent too much time thinking about it. I feel the same way most people do in that I have to disagree. That’s all I’ll say.”

But when Jenkins pointed out that Elden has re-created the photo several times as an adult, Grohl couldn’t help but respond, “Listen, he’s got a Nevermind tattoo. I don’t.”

 

Source

[Chris 2,168]

Quote

 

A judge has dismissed a lawsuit against Nirvana made by Spencer Elden, who appeared as a naked baby on the cover of the band’s classic 1991 album Nevermind, Spin magazine reports.

In California District Court on Monday, Judge Fernando M Olguin dismissed the case “with leave to amend”. Lawyers for Elden missed the deadline to file an opposition to the Nirvana estate’s request to dismiss the case made in December. His team have until 13 January to refile.

 

Quote

Lawyers for the band’s estate – surviving members Dave Grohl and Krist Novoselic; Courtney Love, Cobain’s widow and executor; and Kirk Weddle, the photographer of the cover image – said Elden had “spent three decades profiting from his celebrity as the self-anointed ‘Nirvana Baby’”, recreating the image on the album’s 15th and 20th anniversaries, and tattooing the album’s title on his chest.

Source

The best comment anyone could possibly make on the internet:

 

And in case you don't get it:

 

[TTL News 308]

Quote

LOS ANGELES (AP) — The man who as a 4-month-old appeared nude on the 1991 cover of Nirvana’s album “Nevermind” on Thursday filed a new version of his lawsuit alleging the image is child pornography. 

Source

[Ann 264]

14 hours ago, TwinTiersLiving said:

Source

I don’t believe there were too many people who would recognize this individual from a picture of a 4 month old infant.  He should sue his parents for using him this way, they might have received some form of payment.   But wait, Mom and Dad’s pockets probably aren’t that deep.

[Chris 2,168]

Time to get a job, bro.

Quote

 

The cover of "Nevermind," on which the infant Elden appeared, swimming underwater, his eyes fixed on a dollar bill, has become one of the most enduring images in rock music.

In the original complaint, filed August 24, 2021, Elden's attorneys said the image was pornographic and that he has suffered "lifelong damages" as a result of his involvement.

Elden listed the surviving band members, the executor of lead singer Kurt Cobain's estate, and various record labels as defendants. 

After the complaint was dismissed, a second amended complaint sought damages for what Elden called "lifelong loss of income earning capacity, loss of past and future wages, past and future expenses for medical and psychological treatment, loss of enjoyment of life, and other losses to be described and proven at the trial of this matter."

The lawsuit alleged that Elden was sexualized because the image of the naked baby grabbing at the dollar bill made the baby resemble "a sex worker."

Elden has recreated the image at times during his adulthood, but he also suggested in interviews that he felt uncomfortable about the album cover's popularity.

 

Source

[Kevin 336]

Such a whiner

[Chris 2,168]

Turns out that kid hasn’t given up in his pursuit of money:

”TAMPA, Fla. (WFLA) — An appeals court has ruled that Nirvana can be sued for child porn over its iconic “Nevermind” album cover, which depicted a naked baby in a pool grabbing for a dollar bill.

The court said the band’s re-release of the album in 2021 for its 30th anniversary meant that Spencer Elden — the boy on the cover — could claim personal injury within the 10 years prior to filing his complaint.

The court’s opinion was released on Thursday.”

Read more here 

 

 

[Ann 264]

On 12/22/2023 at 10:27 AM, Chris said:

Turns out that kid hasn’t given up in his pursuit of money:

”TAMPA, Fla. (WFLA) — An appeals court has ruled that Nirvana can be sued for child porn over its iconic “Nevermind” album cover, which depicted a naked baby in a pool grabbing for a dollar bill.

The court said the band’s re-release of the album in 2021 for its 30th anniversary meant that Spencer Elden — the boy on the cover — could claim personal injury within the 10 years prior to filing his complaint.

The court’s opinion was released on Thursday.”

Read more here 

 

 

I have to ask, was the baby’s name included on the album cover?

[Chris 2,168]

2 hours ago, Ann said:

I have to ask, was the baby’s name included on the album cover?

No. Somewhere in this thread is a link to the story, but basically the parents signed a consent form, made a couple hundred bucks and that was supposed to be the end of the story.

Now this guy, who didn’t seem too bothered by telling people he was that baby over the years, decided he was traumatized and exploited.

Aka “broke and looking for an easy pay day.”

[MsKreed 1,185]

16 hours ago, Ann said:

the band’s re-release of the album in 2021 for its 30th anniversary

I'd thought the re-release had the penis covered up. It seems stupid that they didn't blur or block over it. Not just to avoid Spencer's civil complaints, but because times have changed and a lot of stuff just isn't seen through the same lens as "back in the day". 

In this day and age, parents photographing their children's bare butt cheeks have been criminally charged for pornography for just having the pictures.....this case in Colorado and that case in Utah. In these cases, the parents had not shared the photos with anyone.....online, through texts or with friends on FB. Let alone high volume commercial distribution.

 

Edited December 25, 2023 by MsKreed

[Chris 2,168]

On 12/25/2023 at 8:16 AM, MsKreed said:

It seems stupid that they didn't blur or block over it. Not just to avoid Spencer's civil complaints, but because times have changed and a lot of stuff just isn't seen through the same lens as "back in the day". 

I wonder if a lawyer advised them that to do so would be an admission of guilt. Or more precisely, recognize it's "wrong" somehow.