I had to double check it wasn't April 1st when I first read this:

https://news.sky.com/story/nirvanas-nevermind-baby-sues-band-over-child-pornography-claims-12390129

Essentially, the now 30 year old baby featured on the cover of the 1991 Nirvana Nevermind album is suing everyone involved (and some not involved) over the use of child pornography (him swimming naked when a baby).

Some takes from the article:

"Elden, 30, has recreated the image several times, including for Nevermind's 10th, 17th, 20th and 25th anniversaries, and also has the album title tattooed on his chest."

Now, his lawyer Robert Y Lewis says the depiction of the baby reaching for the dollar bill makes Elden look "like a sex worker".

"[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,"

If that image is deemed as pornography then we should stop the planet now and all get off. He has recreated the iconic image himself 4 times and has the album name permanently inked on his chest (I'm assuming he asked for that and it wasn't done to him as a baby) but now he needs $150k to make up for the "commercial child sexual exploitation" that he endured.

Apparently he also states that his name is forever linked to that album. I had never heard of Spencer Elden until 10 minutes ago, but now I will forever link the name with the muppets, not Nirvana.

The lawyer put him up to it for sure.

His parents did not object to the pic and, for the past 12 years, he, as an adult, has not objected to the pic. I think this will be thrown out.

Agreed it will likely be thrown out. If he had done this at age 18 he would've had a better case. But who doesn't want their infantile winkie immortalized on the cover art for an overrated band fronted by a self-enchanted junkie that became a figurehead of the zeitgeist

Yeah, an April Fool's joke that wasn't ready in time and came out now. This has no chance and the guy's going to be out whatever he got suckered into paying his shyster lawyer, who should be dis-barred

The BBC is also reporting this.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-58327844

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".

Why do I get the feeling he lived on the infamy for years? If hadn't told anyone at school it was him, nobody would have ever know or cared in the slightest.

He probably should receive some royalties, a percent or two from sales of that album.

I feel this is rather late in life for such a lawsuit, and wouldn't the parents be more responsible for this event?

frmrCapCadet wrote:

He probably should receive some royalties, a percent or two from sales of that album.

Kinda late for that. That needed to be agreed to before the picture was used for the album or sued for when it was discovered that the picture was used (in case the parents didn't consent to it). It's not like he was unaware. Sorry, but the time for royalties is long gone.

Sounds more like "I'm broke; let me see if I can make some quick money".

This is beyond silly. It should get thrown out quickly. The dude should be mad at his parents for not caring about details, if he's really mad at all.

Some lawyer is about to get pretty rich.

The dude? Not so much...as the case will likely get thrown out. The fact that he also recreates the image (albeit fully clothed) when he was 25 makes it hard to say he suffers "emotional damage".

IIRC according to the law doesn't the picture have to be of sex or sexually suggestive to be considered porn?

NIKV69 wrote:

IIRC according to the law doesn't the picture have to be of sex or sexually suggestive to be considered porn?

That too, but in this case his lawyer claims that having money in the image makes the baby appear as a ‘sex worker’

einsteinboricua wrote:

frmrCapCadet wrote:

He probably should receive some royalties, a percent or two from sales of that album.

Kinda late for that. That needed to be agreed to before the picture was used for the album or sued for when it was discovered that the picture was used (in case the parents didn't consent to it). It's not like he was unaware. Sorry, but the time for royalties is long gone.

Sounds more like "I'm broke; let me see if I can make some quick money".

Yeah and everyone involved in making an album or a movie can't get a cut or it would get real complicated, you work you're paid for that work and that's it. The one who conceived and made the cover (a photographer, probably) owns the rights and can make money off it (selling T shirts for example), or he can have sold the rights.

Trust me, this will be thrown out before it ever reaches trial. This guy has no case. As a matter of fact, when he was a teenager, he was proud of the pic and told the media about it.

No case, no dice. Next!!!!!!!!!!

I can imagine him being quite traumatized and having his life, in total, turning out for the worse because someone put him in that photo many, many years ago beyond his control.
Him having tried to cope with it in numerous more or less weird ways since, is more of a symptom than something that’s against his case.

A lot of people made a lot of money on that record. He is a part of it. His naked body is iconic. And he didn’t get to chose. He should be well compensated.

M564038 wrote:

I can imagine him being quite traumatized and having his life, in total, turning out for the worse because someone put him in that photo many, many years ago beyond his control.
Him having tried to cope with it in numerous more or less weird ways since, is more of a symptom than something that’s against his case.

A lot of people made a lot of money on that record. He is a part of it. His naked body is iconic. And he didn’t get to chose. He should be well compensated.

1. Nobody ever knew it was him, until he told everyone.
2. People bought the album because of the music, not because of the cover photo.

1.These things don’t stay secret. He wasn’t the only one that knew. And why would it matter. His photo was everywhere. He had to deal with it.
2. He is part of that total piece of art. It is a cultural Icon. Even without the music, that photo is in millions of posters still on walls all over the world.

johns624 wrote:

M564038 wrote:

I can imagine him being quite traumatized and having his life, in total, turning out for the worse because someone put him in that photo many, many years ago beyond his control.
Him having tried to cope with it in numerous more or less weird ways since, is more of a symptom than something that’s against his case.

A lot of people made a lot of money on that record. He is a part of it. His naked body is iconic. And he didn’t get to chose. He should be well compensated.

1. Nobody ever knew it was him, until he told everyone.
2. People bought the album because of the music, not because of the cover photo.

M564038 wrote:

I can imagine him being quite traumatized and having his life, in total, turning out for the worse because someone put him in that photo many, many years ago beyond his control.
Him having tried to cope with it in numerous more or less weird ways since, is more of a symptom than something that’s against his case.

A lot of people made a lot of money on that record. He is a part of it. His naked body is iconic. And he didn’t get to chose. He should be well compensated.

Traumatized, how?! The guy bragged that it was him while he was a teenager to the media. Hardly any trauma here. He, alone, created his own trama by bragging it to the media! Maybe he should sue himself.

M564038 wrote:

1.These things don’t stay secret. He wasn’t the only one that knew. And why would it matter. His photo was everywhere. He had to deal with it.
2. He is part of that total piece of art. It is a cultural Icon. Even without the music, that photo is in millions of posters still on walls all over the world.

1. Had to deal with it how? That’s still very vague. This is not a life changing thing - nobody remembered his name till this lawsuit news fired up.

2. His parents decided to make him part of that art. The cover is iconic because the album was a trendsetter in a new genre. That has zero to do with the photo content. It would have sold just as well if the cover was a fetus in a jar.

It would have sold equally well or better if the record company had signed the other band that fought for the same spot in the rooster. Or? The thing is you don’t know. The piece of art, is that piece of art. You don’t know what brought it over the top. The Iconic cover certainly played a part, and even a small part of that album’s impact is worth a lot of money.

Not seeing that having a picture of you as a nude baby hanging on millions of walls can have a impact of your identity and psyche smells of a lack of empathy.

Aaron747 wrote:

M564038 wrote:

1.These things don’t stay secret. He wasn’t the only one that knew. And why would it matter. His photo was everywhere. He had to deal with it.
2. He is part of that total piece of art. It is a cultural Icon. Even without the music, that photo is in millions of posters still on walls all over the world.

1. Had to deal with it how? That’s still very vague. This is not a life changing thing - nobody remembered his name till this lawsuit news fired up.

2. His parents decided to make him part of that art. The cover is iconic because the album was a trendsetter in a new genre. That has zero to do with the photo content. It would have sold just as well if the cover was a fetus in a jar.

M564038 wrote:

It would have sold equally well or better if the record company had signed the other band that fought for the same spot in the rooster. Or? The thing is you don’t know. The piece of art, is that piece of art. You don’t know what brought it over the top. The Iconic cover certainly played a part, and even a small part of that album’s impact is worth a lot of money.

Not seeing that having a picture of you as a nude baby hanging on millions of walls can have a impact of your identity and psyche smells of a lack of empathy.

Aaron747 wrote:

M564038 wrote:

1.These things don’t stay secret. He wasn’t the only one that knew. And why would it matter. His photo was everywhere. He had to deal with it.
2. He is part of that total piece of art. It is a cultural Icon. Even without the music, that photo is in millions of posters still on walls all over the world.

1. Had to deal with it how? That’s still very vague. This is not a life changing thing - nobody remembered his name till this lawsuit news fired up.

2. His parents decided to make him part of that art. The cover is iconic because the album was a trendsetter in a new genre. That has zero to do with the photo content. It would have sold just as well if the cover was a fetus in a jar.

We do know, because the album’s impact on its genre was measurable. If you were a teen in 1991-94 you’d know, believe me.

I have plenty of empathy, but not for attention-seeking shakedowns.

I were a teen in that era, I watched them live and played in a Nirvana cover band.
I have worked in the record business with succesful artists and with major labels too. I am credited on more than 250 albums. I know a thing or two about that business from the inside, and how you build a succesful product. Although I am usually finished with my part of the process long before an album cover is made, I know how it is a part of the total package that can make something go boom. I also know how a little attention or a brush with fame can make people become a little off, especially when it is completely out of their control.

I do symphatize with this guy. He, and his naked baby penis got caught up in something really big, and he don’t know how to cope with it. This is a big part of his life wether he can handle it or not, and it should pay for a big part of his life too.

Better he gets it than the money-leeches of the major label industry. A lot lore deserved, too.

Aaron747 wrote:

M564038 wrote:

It would have sold equally well or better if the record company had signed the other band that fought for the same spot in the rooster. Or? The thing is you don’t know. The piece of art, is that piece of art. You don’t know what brought it over the top. The Iconic cover certainly played a part, and even a small part of that album’s impact is worth a lot of money.

Not seeing that having a picture of you as a nude baby hanging on millions of walls can have a impact of your identity and psyche smells of a lack of empathy.

Aaron747 wrote:

1. Had to deal with it how? That’s still very vague. This is not a life changing thing - nobody remembered his name till this lawsuit news fired up.

2. His parents decided to make him part of that art. The cover is iconic because the album was a trendsetter in a new genre. That has zero to do with the photo content. It would have sold just as well if the cover was a fetus in a jar.

We do know, because the album’s impact on its genre was measurable. If you were a teen in 1991-94 you’d know, believe me.

I have plenty of empathy, but not for attention-seeking shakedowns.

M564038 wrote:

I were a teen in that era, I watched them live and played in a Nirvana cover band.
I have worked in the record business with succesful artists and with major labels too. I am credited on more than 250 albums. I know a thing or two about that business from the inside, and how you build a succesful product. Although I am usually finished with my part of the process long before an album cover is made, I know how it is a part of the total package that can make something go boom. I also know how a little attention or a brush with fame can make people become a little off, especially when it is completely out of their control.

I do symphatize with this guy. He, and his naked baby penis got caught up in something really big, and he don’t know how to cope with it. This is a big part of his life wether he can handle it or not, and it should pay for a big part of his life too.

Better he gets it than the money-leeches of the major label industry. A lot lore deserved, too.

Aaron747 wrote:

M564038 wrote:

It would have sold equally well or better if the record company had signed the other band that fought for the same spot in the rooster. Or? The thing is you don’t know. The piece of art, is that piece of art. You don’t know what brought it over the top. The Iconic cover certainly played a part, and even a small part of that album’s impact is worth a lot of money.

Not seeing that having a picture of you as a nude baby hanging on millions of walls can have a impact of your identity and psyche smells of a lack of empathy.

We do know, because the album’s impact on its genre was measurable. If you were a teen in 1991-94 you’d know, believe me.

I have plenty of empathy, but not for attention-seeking shakedowns.

He didn’t get caught up in anything - the ‘big time’ was when he was a baby. And he didn’t only sue the label - they’re going after Novoselic and Grohl too. And his suit claims he was made a sex worker! Just ridiculous

M564038 wrote:

his naked baby penis got caught up in something really big,

I bet that hurt!

johns624 wrote:

M564038 wrote:

his naked baby penis got caught up in something really big,

I bet that hurt!

Wow great ‘catch’

M564038 wrote:

I can imagine him being quite traumatized and having his life, in total, turning out for the worse because someone put him in that photo many, many years ago beyond his control.
Him having tried to cope with it in numerous more or less weird ways since, is more of a symptom than something that’s against his case.

A lot of people made a lot of money on that record. He is a part of it. His naked body is iconic. And he didn’t get to chose. He should be well compensated.

Are you this guy's lawyer by chance? Or did you just forget to use the sarcasm emoji?

Shouldn't he also sue his parents who gave their agreement for the photo to be taken and used as well?

Francoflier wrote:

Shouldn't he also sue his parents who gave their agreement for the photo to be taken and used as well?

Exactly. If there is any "blame" to dish out (which I don't think there is) then the parents should bear pretty much all of it.

The time to negotiate royalties on the forward success of products using an image is before the image is used.

Well. What i am reading from the comments after my last reply is the following:
1/People in general don’t know how it feels to be exposed.
2/Expecting victims to behave rationally while trying to get afoot is still the default reaction.
3/Americans still think any discussion in english is all about the United states of AMERICA, their current popular culture, their understanding of law and morals, even if they are now close to 100 years behind the civilced parts of the world.

M564038 wrote:

3/Americans still think any discussion in english is all about the United states of AMERICA, their current popular culture, their understanding of law and morals, even if they are now close to 100 years behind the civilced parts of the world.

When you have to revert to perceived insults, that means you've lost the argument. Nirvana was popular culture, that's why we're talking about it. BTW, which "civilced" (sic) part of the world are you from, so that we can maybe understand your point of view?

This is a simple shakedown and nothing else. The proof is that he is seeking only $150,000.00. Honestly he just wants to be paid money. That is all. That amount makes it more affordable for those being sued to just pay it and make it go away. The problem though is he hired an attorney that is trying to make it "something more". If the attorney is to be taken seriously, this should be a million or multi-million dollar case.

Honestly, just pay the guy and make him go away forever, have him sign an NDA to get it.

Tugg

Except this is a lot of global publicity, might lead to new sales of the album. So maybe they don't mind if it stays in the limelight.

seb146 wrote:

His parents did not object to the pic and, for the past 12 years, he, as an adult, has not objected to the pic. I think this will be thrown out.

Legitimate sexually abused children shouldn't lose their legal right just because their parents agreed or they didn't raise the problem themselves earlier in their life

c933103 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

His parents did not object to the pic and, for the past 12 years, he, as an adult, has not objected to the pic. I think this will be thrown out.

Legitimate sexually abused children shouldn't lose their legal right just because their parents agreed or they didn't raise the problem themselves earlier in their life

Of course, but that is a completely unrelated matter.

c933103 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

His parents did not object to the pic and, for the past 12 years, he, as an adult, has not objected to the pic. I think this will be thrown out.

Legitimate sexually abused children shouldn't lose their legal right just because their parents agreed or they didn't raise the problem themselves earlier in their life

But was he sexually abused growing up? Was it only because of that album cover? IIRC, there were "flashback" episodes of sit coms that would sometimes show a naked baby on a bear skin rug. Is that child porn now?

Something that bothers me is this guy is sexualizing his own naked baby pic. It might just be me, but I think that is creepy and gross and borderline narcissistic, isn't it?

seb146 wrote:

c933103 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

His parents did not object to the pic and, for the past 12 years, he, as an adult, has not objected to the pic. I think this will be thrown out.

Legitimate sexually abused children shouldn't lose their legal right just because their parents agreed or they didn't raise the problem themselves earlier in their life

But was he sexually abused growing up? Was it only because of that album cover? IIRC, there were "flashback" episodes of sit coms that would sometimes show a naked baby on a bear skin rug. Is that child porn now?

Something that bothers me is this guy is sexualizing his own naked baby pic. It might just be me, but I think that is creepy and gross and borderline narcissistic, isn't it?

I mean, of course this case doesn't count, but it would be a poor argument no matter it count or not, especially when the same argument can be applied to other cases where facts weren't as obvious, and thus be hurting those people

c933103 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

c933103 wrote:

Legitimate sexually abused children shouldn't lose their legal right just because their parents agreed or they didn't raise the problem themselves earlier in their life

But was he sexually abused growing up? Was it only because of that album cover? IIRC, there were "flashback" episodes of sit coms that would sometimes show a naked baby on a bear skin rug. Is that child porn now?

Something that bothers me is this guy is sexualizing his own naked baby pic. It might just be me, but I think that is creepy and gross and borderline narcissistic, isn't it?

I mean, of course this case doesn't count, but it would be a poor argument no matter it count or not, especially when the same argument can be applied to other cases where facts weren't as obvious, and thus be hurting those people

I see this the same as the people offended by Michelangelo's sculpture David or women nursing their child in public. People scream about pornography and such but it is skin that the creator, whoever you believe that is, gave it to us. Why are people offended by that and why do people sexualize it when, clearly, nothing sexual at all is happening? This is another "Super Bowl Janet Jackson nip slip" case, IMO.

seb146 wrote:

c933103 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

But was he sexually abused growing up? Was it only because of that album cover? IIRC, there were "flashback" episodes of sit coms that would sometimes show a naked baby on a bear skin rug. Is that child porn now?

Something that bothers me is this guy is sexualizing his own naked baby pic. It might just be me, but I think that is creepy and gross and borderline narcissistic, isn't it?

I mean, of course this case doesn't count, but it would be a poor argument no matter it count or not, especially when the same argument can be applied to other cases where facts weren't as obvious, and thus be hurting those people

I see this the same as the people offended by Michelangelo's sculpture David or women nursing their child in public. People scream about pornography and such but it is skin that the creator, whoever you believe that is, gave it to us. Why are people offended by that and why do people sexualize it when, clearly, nothing sexual at all is happening? This is another "Super Bowl Janet Jackson nip slip" case, IMO.

Yes, this would be a good question and good argument against the case, unlike your previous reply.

c933103 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

c933103 wrote:

I mean, of course this case doesn't count, but it would be a poor argument no matter it count or not, especially when the same argument can be applied to other cases where facts weren't as obvious, and thus be hurting those people

I see this the same as the people offended by Michelangelo's sculpture David or women nursing their child in public. People scream about pornography and such but it is skin that the creator, whoever you believe that is, gave it to us. Why are people offended by that and why do people sexualize it when, clearly, nothing sexual at all is happening? This is another "Super Bowl Janet Jackson nip slip" case, IMO.

Yes, this would be a good question and good argument against the case, unlike your previous reply.

Sexualizing something that was never meant to be nor ever was sexual? That was what I was getting at.

Tugger wrote:

This is a simple shakedown and nothing else. The proof is that he is seeking only $150,000.00. Honestly he just wants to be paid money. That is all. That amount makes it more affordable for those being sued to just pay it and make it go away. The problem though is he hired an attorney that is trying to make it "something more". If the attorney is to be taken seriously, this should be a million or multi-million dollar case.

Honestly, just pay the guy and make him go away forever, have him sign an NDA to get it.

Tugg

Agree. Although I think a small pension, say $1K a month to be inflation adjusted would be more fun and useful for him.