Baby From Nirvana's Nevermind Album Sues Band For Child Pornography

[JeanGary Diablo]

Upon reading the article, it seems he basked in the attention he got for being on the cover of Nevermind for 30 years, but the novelty has finally worn off after three decades and now he feels entitled to compensation.

Jesus wept.

 

[Valcazar]

Given his move to cash in on it a few years ago, I find his pitch here very suspect.

 

[JackBurton]

Oh I agree there. This is a total money grab or after regret. He says he tried to work with them on another project and he just got ignored so he is probably pissed as well.

But legally I think he has claim. I don’t think he has suffered all the losses listed but it is child pornography and if there is no contract for commercial use, then he has law on his side.

I don’t blame the guy. His image has been reproduced countless times. The band didn’t pay? Fuck them.

Nude kid on an album cover: fuck them.

Fuck Led Zepplin houses of the holy, fuck Blind Faith while we are at it.

I remember a few years ago the students that sang on Pink Floyd’s The Wall asking for a share of the profits. Turned out the band used them and then forgot about them.

This topic makes my blood boil. Kids cannot give consent until they are 18.

 

[Thackeray]

It's wonderful that we've created a society so stable and prosperous that this is a real issue. Pretty sure it's number 10,001 on the list for women in Afghanistan.

 

[JeanGary Diablo]

I hope the judge finds Nirvana liable and awards Mr Elden exactly ONE DOLLAR in compensation .... and to receive his money, he must jump naked into a pool and chase after the dollar, which will be hooked to the end of a fishing pole and reeled in by Dave Grohl.

 

[james t kirk]

It's funny but back in the day I thought that little nub was the remnants his embilical cord.

 

[poker]

His parents and agent consented for him. That's legally binding. So stfu.

A possibly new contention in the lawsuit is that Elden’s parents never even signed paperwork allowing any use of the image.

“Neither Spencer nor his legal guardians ever signed a release authorizing the use of any images of Spencer or of his likeness, and certainly not of commercial child pornography depicting him,” reads the suit.

 

[mandrill]

A possibly new contention in the lawsuit is that Elden’s parents never even signed paperwork allowing any use of the image.

“Neither Spencer nor his legal guardians ever signed a release authorizing the use of any images of Spencer or of his likeness, and certainly not of commercial child pornography depicting him,” reads the suit.

Which raises the question where Nirvana (or the record company) got the image.

It's a professionally set up and shot image. So a professional photographer must have set it up, posed the baby and shot it. And that pre supposes consent. And the image is clearly that of a naked baby. And that presumes consent to the use of a naked image.

 

[Jenesis]

Which raises the question where Nirvana (or the record company) got the image.

It's a professionally set up and shot image. So a professional photographer must have set it up, posed the baby and shot it. And that pre supposes consent. And the image is clearly that of a naked baby. And that presumes consent to the use of a naked image.

First, again - I don’t think it is legal to sell naked images of children. Regardless of age.

Second, my understanding was yes - the photographer paid $200 for him to model in the shoot, but that is only for the photographer to shoot it. Again, not for the commercial use of the image. Which they would need both a photographer and model release for. So even if the photographer sold them the image, they still needed permission from his parents under a model release to commercially use the image.

 

[mandrill]

First, again - I don’t think it is legal to sell naked images of children. Regardless of age.

Second, my understanding was yes - the photographer paid $200 for him to model in the shoot, but that is only for the photographer to shoot it. Again, not for the commercial use of the image. Which they would need both a photographer and model release for. So even if the photographer sold them the image, they still needed permission from his parents under a model release to commercially use the image.

If it's "illegal" to sell naked images of children, someone forgot to tell any police force in any state, province or country where Nevermind was sold. Because no one ever commenced a prosecution AFAIK. Leaving aside the issue of whether a large record company would run the cover by their legal dept before printing it.

And maybe they needed a commercial consent, but IM469 is correct. Surely this is WAY past any limitation period. And again, you figure these things were run by the legal dept before the cover was printed.

 

[Jasmina]

Not really, dude has worked the convention circuit for years making money off the album cover. He has 'Nevermind' tattooed on his chest even. He's paid as a adult to recreate the cover FIVE times. Once insisting on being nude, but the photographer refused to shoot him nude, lol.

Well up until now he enjoyed complete anonymity. So if his argument was invasion of privacy he has brought it on himself for one reason only. To make a buck. Talk about making a non issue and issue....I had never heard of Spencer Eden or knew what he looked like and didn't give a shit who the baby was on an album cover that was fading into obscurity. Looks like he's still into grunge.
He might have a case for a paternity suit against Bob Geldof whilst he's at it. Now he's enjoying his 15 minutes.

 

[Jenesis]

If it's "illegal" to sell naked images of children, someone forgot to tell any police force in any state, province or country where Nevermind was sold. Because no one ever commenced a prosecution AFAIK. Leaving aside the issue of whether a large record company would run the cover by their legal dept before printing it.

And maybe they needed a commercial consent, but IM469 is correct. Surely this is WAY past any limitation period. And again, you figure these things were run by the legal dept before the cover was printed.

Your the lawyer and you don’t know if it is illegal to sell naked pics of children? You certainly can’t pass around naked pics of kids, but it is okay to sell them???

It is a total assumption on your part that a legal team was even involved.

 

[Jasmina]

Coopertone would like a word with you.

First, again - I don’t think it is legal to sell naked images of children. Regardless of age.

Second, my understanding was yes - the photographer paid $200 for him to model in the shoot, but that is only for the photographer to shoot it. Again, not for the commercial use of the image. Which they would need both a photographer and model release for. So even if the photographer sold them the image, they still needed permission from his parents under a model release to commercially use the image.

 

[mandrill]

Your the lawyer and you don’t know if it is illegal to sell naked pics of children? You certainly can’t pass around naked pics of kids, but it is okay to sell them???

It is a total assumption on your part that a legal team was even involved.

IIRC, it was a major label release. EVERYTHING gets lawyer-ed.

 

[JeanGary Diablo]

Hi, I'm the pedestrian crossing on Abbey Road in London. I'm planning to sue the Beatles for walking all over me in 1969, and I especially want compensation from that bastard Paul McCartney. I can still smell his sweaty bare feet.

 

[Beagle_]

Asshole.

 

[richaceg]

Your the lawyer and you don’t know if it is illegal to sell naked pics of children? You certainly can’t pass around naked pics of kids, but it is okay to sell them???

It is a total assumption on your part that a legal team was even involved.

actually it isn't an assumption....before an album gets released, it does go through legal...these big recording companies don't fuck around every album release....they face lawsuits in every corner from identical notes to songs to lyrics etc etc....and this was the time nirvana was huge....

 

[JackBurton]

IIRC, it was a major label release. EVERYTHING gets lawyer-ed.

Yeah but Sub Pop records was just two guys in their basement or years. They promoted talent on a shoestring budget. They probably ok’d it knowing they would sell out to Warner in 1994.

Dont think the original owners can dodge this one either.

 

[oral.com]

Total shakedown!

 

[mandrill]

Yeah but Sub Pop records was just two guys in their basement or years. They promoted talent on a shoestring budget. They probably ok’d it knowing they would sell out to Warner in 1994.

Dont think the original owners can dodge this one either.

It would still be lawyer-ed. Stuff like "Do we have the rights to the album cover art?" and "Will we go to jail if we run this album art?" are pretty basic questions.