Nirvana hit with child sexual exploitation lawsuit over naked baby photo on Nevermind album | Stuff.co.nz
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The surviving members of the band Nirvana and Kurt Cobain's estate are being sued over their 1991 album Nevermind.
Spencer Elden, the man who was featured on the album's artwork when he was a baby, is suing for child sexual exploitation and is looking to be awarded US$150,000 (NZ$216,000) in damages, TMZ and Pitchforkreport. The lawsuit also lists Geffen Records, Warner Records, and photographer Kirk Weddle.
As you might recall, the iconic album cover features a naked 4-month-old Elden in a swimming pool.
In the suit, Elden claims that his legal guardians never signed documents "authorizing the use of any images of Spencer or of his likeness, and certainly not of commercial child pornography depicting him."
Elden, who has "Nevermind" tattooed on his chest, also argues in the suit that the band "reproduced child pornography depicting Spencer knowing and intending that it would be distributed internationally and that they would receive value from such widespread worldwide distribution."
Elden went on to argue that they "failed to take reasonable steps to protect Spencer and prevent his widespread sexual exploitation and image trafficking" and as a result he "has suffered and will continue to suffer lifelong damages".
In addition to the US$150,000, the suit requests that "attorney's fees and other litigation costs reasonably incurred" also be covered.
"It's f.... up," Elden previously said in a 2016 interview with GQ Australia. "I'm pissed off about it, to be honest".
Elsewhere in the same interview Elden compared the experience of being featured on the album's cover to "that dream where you go to school without your clothes on".
Tags
Who is online
122 visitors
"I'm pissed off about it, to be honest".
Yes indeed, how embarrassing to have your four month old wang exposed. So embarrassed that this is your Instagram page:
Yeah, pretty pathetic but ...... a sign of our times unfortunately
The prick even redid the picture in 2016 for the 25th anniversary of the album and WANTED to be naked but the photog said no.
I think he got the dollar bill.
I heard that on the radio this morning. How ridiculous.
What a frivolous lawsuit.
I’m not s fan of NYP, but there’s an interview in this link that makes it appear even more frivolous. He’s just salty that he he’s not on the gravy train. I read elsewhere that he’s still living with his mom at 30 and driving a Honda Civic. That’s on you buddy.
I love my parents but to still be living with them at 30? Never happen.
Like much of my generation I couldn't wait to get out on my own.
Oh how things have changed ......
Sounds like he's just trying to cash in.
I agree with you on this
He will probably lose, BIGLY.
Interesting it's about "pornography" and not about likeness rights. Pink Floyd had to settle with some of the children on the original recording of Another Brick In The Wall Part 2. A local school music teacher snuck the kids into the recording studio and back. I believe the instructor lost his job after the song hit in the singles charts. The kids never signed contracts nor were compensated until they became adults and sued the band for royalties.
Yeah, child porn? That's ridiculous.
I always though that using that picture was wrong and wondered why they were allowed to publish it. I don't think the band meant it to be porn but you have to ask what the hell were they thinking. Sure people used to take pictures of their very young children naked but they were family photos not meant for publication. I'd like to know who took the photo and why and how it found it's way into Nirvana's hands and onto their album. It's not that I think the photo is obscene it's a cool photo of a baby swimming but you know damn well there are some people perving over it. So as a family photo it is fine but it should never have been disseminated or published. For me it comes down to the fact the band could have photo shopped the penis away and the photo would still be cool but they didn't instead they put the wiener on display and you'll never convince me that somebody at the record company didn't suggest doing just that, you know somebody said "maybe we should cut out the wiener". Maybe if it was Kurt Cobain as a baby in the picture it would be alright but it wasn't it was a baby who didn't and couldn't consent so I say give the guy his 150 grand.
Yeah, you would have thought that someone would have had a little foresight here. If not Cobain, then perhaps someone in their hub's kid. This kid is trying to cash in, and I can't say that I blame him. 150k doesn't seem like an unreasonable demand. I was expecting to read he was in the seven figure range.
It's stupid and he shouldn't get diddly squat.
You know, I am going to disagree. It was not up to the band to make that decision. It was up to his parents. They got paid for that photoshoot, and if they were decent parents, they put the money aside for the kid. But either way, it was the parent's decision.
As for baby nudity, I have no issue with it. I see naked babies running around on the beach all the time.
This is nothing more than greed and despises the greedy. I say not to give the kid a dime, because to do so would be an admission of wrong doing and there was none.
Bazinga!
If he wins on the basis that it is child porn then you and I are both headed to the pokie for disseminating it here!
I say they don't give this idiot $150,000 and make him responsible for all legal costs.
Dave Grohl himself could sneeze $150K and not notice. The Cobain estate has him beat in estimated worth. This would be nothing and may be worth paying off the troll to get rid of a problem.
It would seem that would be the smart thing to do but the estates Lawyers wouldn't make as much so they're unlikely to recommend a quick resolution. They'll probably charge 300 grand to defend against the case. I would have recommended settling as compensation for using the image as long as the kid agreed to drop the child sexual exploitation aspect of the suit.
They can afford the $$, but who can socially afford to say they settled out of court on a charge of conveying child porn? I think the guy’s mistake was to attach such a hideous motive to his otherwise not-so-unreasonable damages.
In other news 6 million National Geographic nudes sue for a bottle of water and a pair of shoes.
I dont have any opinion about this one way or the other except to say I think people have "gotten paid" for less.
His daddy got $200 for the shot. Hope his dick grows.
He hasn't suffered crap. Other than maybe from his own doing. He has talked about this and exploited himself with this for years.
No one would have ever even known it was him. He wanted to come forward and wanted the notoriety.