Nirvana album cover baby now 30yo sues

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Nirvana's famous naked baby has SUED the band for child pornography after appearing on their iconic 1991 Nevermind album cover.
Spencer Eldon, now 30, said Nirvana and the estate of Kurt Cobain ‘trafficked’ his image as a naked baby and is claiming $2.5million in damages for being 'exploited as a minor'.

Nirvana sued for exploitation claims over 1991 Nevermind album cover

In court documents, Elden alleged that band members, record companies and creative personnel had 'trafficked' his image for profit, and he has 'continued to suffer lifelong damages.'

www.dailymail.co.uk

He will probably win his case.
Nirvana was a ground breaking band that brought in a new wave of great rock music in the 90s.
At the time of Nevermind's release they were a relatively unknown band.
It is now an iconic album that sold about 8 million copies
However, I always wondered who approved of that album cover.
It was probably done to shock people and gain attention, but the kid was exploited.

 

[martybegan]

Nirvana's famous naked baby has SUED the band for child pornography after appearing on their iconic 1991 Nevermind album cover.
Spencer Eldon, now 30, said Nirvana and the estate of Kurt Cobain ‘trafficked’ his image as a naked baby and is claiming $2.5million in damages for being 'exploited as a minor'.

Nirvana sued for exploitation claims over 1991 Nevermind album cover

In court documents, Elden alleged that band members, record companies and creative personnel had 'trafficked' his image for profit, and he has 'continued to suffer lifelong damages.'

www.dailymail.co.uk

He will probably win his case.
Nirvana was a ground breaking band that brought in a new wave of great rock music in the 90s.
At the time of Nevermind's release they were a relatively unknown band.
It is now an iconic album that sold about 8 million copies
However, I always wondered who approved of that album cover.
It was probably done to shock people and gain attention, but the kid was exploited.
View attachment 530523

Nothing more than a money grab. His parents were supposedly paid $200 for the photograph.

Just a money grab attempt by the guy, will probably settle for $100k.

 

[MarcATL]

lol

 

[occupied]

If naked baby pictures are child porn then most of the mothers who have lived since the invention of photography belong in jail.

 

[Gabe Lackmann]

Well when you grow up with the nickname 'baby dick', you want revenge.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Nothing more than a money grab. His parents were supposedly paid $200 for the photograph.

Just a money grab attempt by the guy, will probably settle for $100k.

but, they still exploited the kid and made $millions, the kid has a good case

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Nirvana's famous naked baby has SUED the band for child pornography after appearing on their iconic 1991 Nevermind album cover.
Spencer Eldon, now 30, said Nirvana and the estate of Kurt Cobain ‘trafficked’ his image as a naked baby and is claiming $2.5million in damages for being 'exploited as a minor'.

Nirvana sued for exploitation claims over 1991 Nevermind album cover

In court documents, Elden alleged that band members, record companies and creative personnel had 'trafficked' his image for profit, and he has 'continued to suffer lifelong damages.'

www.dailymail.co.uk

He will probably win his case.
Nirvana was a ground breaking band that brought in a new wave of great rock music in the 90s.
At the time of Nevermind's release they were a relatively unknown band.
It is now an iconic album that sold about 8 million copies
However, I always wondered who approved of that album cover.
It was probably done to shock people and gain attention, but the kid was exploited.
View attachment 530523

I could be wrong, but in most jurisdictions, at 18, the statute of limitations begins to run for any minor child's causes of action.

I don't know about limitations on child pornography. I don't think there is one in many jurisdictions, just like there is no limitations on murder.

 

[bluzman61]

Nirvana's famous naked baby has SUED the band for child pornography after appearing on their iconic 1991 Nevermind album cover.
Spencer Eldon, now 30, said Nirvana and the estate of Kurt Cobain ‘trafficked’ his image as a naked baby and is claiming $2.5million in damages for being 'exploited as a minor'.

Nirvana sued for exploitation claims over 1991 Nevermind album cover

In court documents, Elden alleged that band members, record companies and creative personnel had 'trafficked' his image for profit, and he has 'continued to suffer lifelong damages.'

www.dailymail.co.uk

He will probably win his case.
Nirvana was a ground breaking band that brought in a new wave of great rock music in the 90s.
At the time of Nevermind's release they were a relatively unknown band.
It is now an iconic album that sold about 8 million copies
However, I always wondered who approved of that album cover.
It was probably done to shock people and gain attention, but the kid was exploited.
View attachment 530523

Oh, brother. After ALL this time, he finally sues. Something smells awful fishy to me.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

but, they still exploited the kid and made $millions, the kid has a good case

HAD....had a good case. If he is 30 years old now, his right to pursue this ended in 2011 or 2013, depending on the jurisdiction and limitations periods.

 

[martybegan]

but, they still exploited the kid and made $millions, the kid has a good case

Based on what law? And if it was a law broken, when was it passed? When was the statue of limitations? What about the fact that he was a 4 month old minor and his parents legally sold the photograph for use on the album cover?

Sorry, but unless he TELLS people who he is no one would know he was the kid in the photograph.

 

[martybegan]

I could be wrong, but in most jurisdictions, at 18, the statute of limitations begins to run for any minor child's causes of action.

I don't know about limitations on child pornography. I don't think there is one in many jurisdictions, just like there is no limitations on murder.

In what frame does that photograph count as pornography?

 

[Canon Shooter]

If the guy's parents didn;t agree to let the photo be used in the manner it was, that would be a very strong argument for them to be victorious.

The guy's response to it through the years; recreating the photo, etc, tells me that this probably wasn't his idea. Someone probably said "Hey, this is child porn" and planted the seed in his head.

"Sexual exploitation"?

I don't see it...

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Based on what law? And if it was a law broken, when was it passed? When was the statue of limitations? What about the fact that he was a 4 month old minor and his parents legally sold the photograph for use on the album cover?

Sorry, but unless he TELLS people who he is no one would know he was the kid in the photograph.

He should also sue his parents for that 200 dollars.
The only point is that he was exploited and they made $millions.
They will probably settle out of court.

 

[Concerned American]

HAD....had a good case. If he is 30 years old now, his right to pursue this ended in 2011 or 2013, depending on the jurisdiction and limitations periods.

I don't know, I think if he can show he was harmed as a result during current day, the clock would reset after each incident.

 

[Canon Shooter]

What about the fact that he was a 4 month old minor and his parents legally sold the photograph for use on the album cover?

From how it appears, the photographer, who was a friends of Elden's parents, never told them the photo would be used for an album cover...

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

The irony is that the album cover is spoofing the pursuit of money while the band made $millions.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Yeah... he's not going to get a dime.

Besides that, I did wonder how they got away with it to begin with.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

In what frame does that photograph count as pornography?

Under Texas Law (don't know about others), anything that depicts nudity of a child is an offense, see below and there are other statutes. There are many affirmative defenses to prosecution, but I am not sure if any apply here, or if this even applies directly.

Texas Penal Code - PENAL § 43.261 | FindLaw

Texas Penal Code PENAL TX PENAL Section 43.261. Read the code on FindLaw

codes.findlaw.com

 

[martybegan]

From how it appears, the photographer, who was a friends of Elden's parents, never told them the photo would be used for an album cover...

Will have to see how the rights were transferred.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

If the guy's parents didn;t agree to let the photo be used in the manner it was, that would be a very strong argument for them to be victorious.

But, their right to pursue a cause of action is likely expired, as is the kid's.