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
74 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.
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.
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.
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!
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.