Nirvana album cover baby now 30yo sues

[Moonglow]

The kid never did sign a release his parents did...So, he can sue away.

 

[Resnic]

Just a shameless money grab and nothing else.

He should sue his parents though, they are the ones that let it happen.

And no, a naked baby isn't child porn for fucks sake. What an asshole.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Just a shameless money grab and nothing else.

He should sue his parents though, they are the ones that let it happen.

And no, a naked baby isn't child porn for fucks sake. What an asshole.

Nirvana made many $millions off of that album, his picture contributed to the album sales, he is entitled to his share.

 

[Missourian]

Dude Really Wants You To Know He Was On The Cover Of Nirvana’s Nevermind

Spencer Elden wants you to know that he was the baby on the cover of Nevermind. He’s popped up in the news talking about it every few years for the past decade and a half, sometimes going as far as to recreate the photograph (in 2001 and 2008) and other times just saying hey to […]

www.stereogum.com

 

[Missourian]

Nirvana made many $millions off of that album, his picture contributed to the album sales, he is entitled to his share.

Yep...a $200 share...that went to his parents.

 

[JOSweetHeart]

Forgive me if this is a dumb question, but what kind of money did the guy's parents get for allowing his picture be what is used? Of course, we all know that the band having the bigger mountain of money is the reason why they are who has been hit with the lawsuit, but shouldn't the lawsuit be against his parents instead for using him to score whatever fortune it is that they were given?

God bless you always!!!

Holly

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Yep...a $200 share...that went to his parents.

I am betting that Nirvana will settle out of court because he has a strong case for his fair share.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Forgive me if this is a dumb question, but what kind of money did the guy's parents get for allowing his picture be what is used? Of course, we all know that the band having the bigger mountain of money is the reason why they are who has been hit with the lawsuit, but shouldn't the lawsuit be against his parents instead for using him to score whatever fortune it is that they were given?

God bless you always!!!

Holly

He should also sue his parents for the $200 dollars that they were paid.

 

[Dekster]

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

We'll see. There may be a statute of limitations. Nudity is not always considered pornographic. And surely somebody was paid for it and signed releases.

 

[Dekster]

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

They made millions off the record, not the cover. BTW, generally the rights belong to the person taking the photo, not the person in it, unless you have a contract that says otherwise.

 

[Dana7360]

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

No they can't win.

Just because Nirvana made a lot of money and it was their breakthrough album doesn't mean that this person will win.

I work in the music photography industry.

I have sold photos to be on CDs, DVDs and albums.

The most recent one will be out in October.

No one will ever publish a photo on an album cover without a media release from the person in the photo. In this case, that child was way too young to legally sign a contract.

The parents did. And that's binding.

So Nirvana got permission by the legal adults who were legally qualified to sign that contract.

There are 3 requirements to enter into a contract:
1. All involved must be of sound mind.
2. The contract can't be signed under duress.
3 All involved must be at least 18 years of age.

Just because the child was a minor and just because the band made a lot of money, isn't grounds to sue.

IF this person is soooo upset with that album cover, the people responsible for it are the child's parents and they are the people that person should be suing.

People didn't buy that album because if it's cover.

People bought it because of the music on the album.

But they're suing Nirvana. Only because of money. Nothing more.

 

[petro]

Maybe he could also argue that they were tying to drown him also. I see no infant floaties.

Seriously, what a stupid lawsuit.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

They made millions off the record, not the cover. BTW, generally the rights belong to the person taking the photo, not the person in it, unless you have a contract that says otherwise.

he has a case

Can I Sue a Company for Using My Image to Sell a ... - HG.org​

https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/can-i-sue-a...

When a business uses the image or likeness of an individual without his or her consent or permission, they may file a suit for misappropriation of likeness. At common law, the use of another person’s image to promote or publicize products or services without their direct consent may constitute grounds for such a cause of action.

 

[Dana7360]

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...

They didn't have to tell them.

All they needed was a media release.

All media releases either specifically say how the photos can be used or gives blanket permission to use that photo any way they want.

You should know this.

 

[Missourian]

I am betting that Nirvana will settle out of court because he has a strong case for his fair share.

I disagree that he is entitled to any "fair share".

What did he add that any other random baby wouldn't have?

If I pay Ford to put a picture of a Mustang with a baby penis painted on it on an album cover...if I make a billion dollars on the album...do I owe Ford a "fair share"?

No. They have received their fair compensation.

And so did Spencer's parents.

That's the end of the transaction.

 

[Dana7360]

The kid never did sign a release his parents did...So, he can sue away.

No he can't.

By law the parents can legally sign that contract. The parents are the agent for the child. The parents probably got paid too.

That contract was legally signed by the parents and the person in the photo can't do much of anything about it.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Some ambulance chasing lawyer probably whispered in his ear.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

LEGAL PAD: What You Should Know About Likeness Rights | Performer Mag

Case Example: Several years ago, American Apparel used a photo of filmmaker Woody Allen, taken from his film Annie Hall, on a promotional billboard. Allen sued, stating, “American Apparel…calculatingly took my name, my likeness, and image and used them publicly to promote their business.” The company ended up settling for a reported $5 million dollars.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

It's on his parents.

 

[Dana7360]

LEGAL PAD: What You Should Know About Likeness Rights | Performer Mag

Case Example: Several years ago, American Apparel used a photo of filmmaker Woody Allen, taken from his film Annie Hall, on a promotional billboard. Allen sued, stating, “American Apparel…calculatingly took my name, my likeness, and image and used them publicly to promote their business.” The company ended up settling for a reported $5 million dollars.

They didn't get permission from Woody Allen to use it.

Woody Allen signed a contract with the company that owns the rights to that film and his likeness in regard to that film.

American Apparel didn't have a signed media release contract with Woody Allen to use that photo.

I'm so not surprised the company settled. They would never have won and Woody Allen could have recovered much more than 5 million dollars.