Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Except they didn't. In their deal with Geffen they got $175,000 for the record. According to Kurt,"No, we didn't get that much. [We got] $175,000. 33% tax bracket, 15% to our lawyer, 10% to our manager, $70,000 to Sub Pop... it left us with about $20,000 to buy equipment."The irony is that the album cover is spoofing the pursuit of money while the band made $millions.
Or mine:
but, they still exploited the kid and made $millions, the kid has a good case
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
More likely his PARENTS exploited him.
Except they didn't. In their deal with Geffen they got $175,000 for the record. According to Kurt,"No, we didn't get that much. [We got] $175,000. 33% tax bracket, 15% to our lawyer, 10% to our manager, $70,000 to Sub Pop... it left us with about $20,000 to buy equipment."
Bands don't usually make much from album sales. They make money touring.
"May" does not equal "definitely". His father was paid by the photographer and the photographer owned the rights.he has a case
Can I Sue a Company for Using My Image to Sell a ... - HG.org
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.
Sorry, but you're wrong.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.
Owning the rights simply means that no one else can use the photo without the photographer's permission. It does not grant the photographer the right to use the photo, though."May" does not equal "definitely". His father was paid by the photographer and the photographer owned the rights.
Sorry, but you're wrong.
Please provide a source which shows that someone's likeness can be used for profit without the individual's (or in this case the parent's) written consent.
Had a release (and it's known as a "model release" in most jurisdictions) been provided (and it doesn't appear as though one was), it would have had to been stated in that release that the photo would be used in the manner it was. That's not the case. The parent's didn't know it would be used for an album cover.
"Neither Elden nor his guardians signed a release authorizing the use of the image, according to the suit. The family was paid $250..."
"In 2008, Spencer's father, Rick, recounted the 1991 shoot to NPR. He said his friend Weddle, the photographer, "calls us up and was like, 'Hey Rick, wanna make 200 bucks and throw your kid in the drink?,'" the father recalled. "I was like, 'What's up?' And he's like, 'Well, I'm shooting kids all this week, why don't you meet me at the Rose Bowl [Aquatic Center], throw your kid in the drink?' And we just had a big party at the pool, and no one had any idea what was going on!"
Guy Sues Nirvava
The use of the photo was illegal. There's really no argument to that. But the kid seems to have been having a good time with his notoriety through the years, only up until recently, so I think suing for $2.4 million is a bit of a stretch. He's even suing Chad Channing, the original drummer for Nirvana, despite the fact that Channing left the band long before the kid was even born.
My take on it? He's suing as many people as he can in hopes that one of them settles...
Bet the statute of limitations or laches will stop this case flat.but, they still exploited the kid and made $millions, the kid has a good case
We will have to wait to see if there was a release signed or not.
ELP was one of my faves. So this is yours?I made the mistake of thinking there was one. No photographer take photos of people, especially a nude baby, without one. That has to be one stupid photographer.
Below is the usage details of the most recent cover with one of my photos. It's standard. I'm very surprised that no contract was signed. As for my copyrights, the photo that is used is nearly 30 years old. I have full copyrights to it and can use it anyway I want.
Owning the rights simply means that no one else can use the photo without the photographer's permission. It does not grant the photographer the right to use the photo, though.
I took a photo of Graham Nash a few years ago that I'm really happy with.
View attachment 530582
Not long after I started offering the photo for sale on my website, I received a phone call from an attorney in Los Angeles. He said I didn't have Nash's permission to sell that photo and, for that reason, he was going to send me a cease and desist. When I told him I was surprised he was calling, instead of just sending the letter, he stated that the reason he didn't send the letter was because Graham Nash actually liked the photo very much, and wanted a copy of it to hang in his office. He told me to e-mail him my price for the photo the next day.
Well, the next day, before I e-mailed the lawyer, the phone rings, and it's Graham Nash (who's also a very accomplished photographer).
He thanked me for pulling the photo offline, and complimented me on the photograph. He offered me a price (which was a bit higher than I was going to request), a signed copy of his book "Wild Tales" and VIP seats at his future shows when he comes through town (which will be this coming March). He said he's also be happy to autograph the print I have hanging in my office.
I did well with that picture, but I damn sure couldn't sell it to anyone else...
Apparently, there was not.
But the release would still need to specify how the photo was to be used. You can't take a photo of a baby, with a release that says you can publish that photo a single time in a magazine, and sell it to Gerber for their campaign ad...
ELP was one of my faves. So this is yours?
Ohhh man your humor is in the ionsphere.................lolololWell when you grow up with the nickname 'baby dick', you want revenge.
He should sue his imbecilic parents30 years ago, our society had not gone bat shit insane. Most parents book nekkid pics of their babies and decent people didn't see them as pornography.
The grown up baby schmuck is trying to turn something innocent into something dirty for his personal profit.
Swimming naked in a pool after 5 minutes doesn't flatter men.....BAWWWWHAHAHASpencer 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!!!
You can sue a ham sammich tooThe kid never did sign a release his parents did...So, he can sue away.
