Nirvana album cover baby now 30yo sues

[Missourian]

Spencer Eldon: How can I make money off of this....

I know...I'll get naked for an Anniversary recreation of this cover image.

In 2016, 25-year-old Eldon recreated the cover fully clothed to pay homage to the hit record...

<Snip>

I said to the photographer, ‘Let’s do it naked.’ But he thought that would be weird, so I wore my swim shorts," Elden said of the shoot at the time.

Source.​

Well shit...that didn't work.

I know...I'll play victim and sue them for...uh... child pornography... yeah... that's the ticket!!!

 

[toobfreak]

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'.

Wow, I have never seen someone try to go so far to cover up the fact that he only has a 1 inch penis.

Sorry, Spencer, it is way too late, everyone has already seen your little pee pee.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

In what frame does that photograph count as pornography?

USSC Jude Potter Stewart famously said in his 1964 Order that he could not use words to describe pornography but "I know it when I see it." .......guess that it is in the eye of the beholder

 

[martybegan]

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

They might go with the whole "since the album is being produced still the time never ran out" thing, but that's a long shot.

 

[toobfreak]

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

I seriously doubt the album photo had anything to do with their sales. Frankly, I always thought that album cover sucked.

 

[martybegan]

Wow, I have never seen someone try to go so far to cover up the fact that he only has a 1 inch penis.

Sorry, Spencer, it is way too late, everyone has already seen your little pee pee.

As a 4 month old?

Extrapolating to current day he must be hung like a horse.

 

[Unkotare]

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

You would know since that is how you are known to this day (for a different reason).

 

[martybegan]

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

Seems overly broad to me.

 

[toobfreak]

I don't know about limitations on child pornography.

How did a simple picture of a naked baby ever get conflated with child pornography? There is no implied or inferred sexual intent to the photograph, it is one of mere innocence.

 

[toobfreak]

As a 4 month old?

Extrapolating to current day he must be hung like a horse.

Then Nirvana ought to be charging HIM.

 

[toobfreak]

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

That ship has sailed.

 

[Gabe Lackmann]

You would know since that is how you are known to this day (for a different reason).

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Seems overly broad to me.

Oh, I 100% agree. Very broad. I am surprised it has not been challenged at the SCOTUS.

 

[miketx]

Good thing they didn't use my baby picture.

 

[martybegan]

That ship has sailed.

I saw his picture, still wouldn't recognize him if he walked past me on the street.

 

[Hellokitty]

He's recreated the image numerous times since being an infant so not seeing how he could win a case claiming he was exploited or experiences any form of trauma.

 

[$ecular#eckler]

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

The guy has exploited the album himself to promote himself during the anniversary years. I have read a couple of articles about him just this past year as I have been researching Nirvana and David Grohl.

https://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/rock/7519012/nirvana-nevermind-baby-recreates-iconic-album-cover-25-years-later

"I said to the photographer, 'Let's do it naked.' But he thought that would be weird, so I wore my swim shorts," said Elden, who was four months old when the picture was taken. The original photographer was Kirk Weddle, who knew Elden's father, Rick, and asked if he could use baby Elden for a photoshoot for a then-little-known band from Seattle. "The anniversary means something to me," Elden said. "It's strange that I did this for five minutes when I was four months old and it because this really iconic image... It's cool but weird to be part of something so important that I don't even remember."

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

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

Nirvana made many $millions from the album and he involuntarily contributed to the album sales.
He has a good case that he is entitled to his share.
The band members should give him his fair share, and they probably will settle out of court.

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.

But what if he sued when he became a legal adult at age 18?

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Then Nirvana ought to be charging HIM.

The band members are reasonable men, they will probably give him his fair share, the question is how much they will settle for.

 

[toobfreak]

The band members are reasonable men, they will probably give him his fair share, the question is how much they will settle for.

I don't see where he is owed a dime. A deal was made long ago, a price agreed to and the matter paid. End of story. This kid can claim no harm from that picture, and if he can, then his case is with his PARENTS, who agreed to the deal.