Nirvana album cover baby now 30yo sues

[Hellbilly]

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

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.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Good thing they didn't use my baby picture.

View attachment 530537

Or mine:

 

[westwall]

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

More likely his PARENTS exploited him.

 

[Polishprince]

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 don't see a lawsuit here, but there is definitely cause enough for a criminal prosecution.

Child Porn (or according to the liberal code word- "Cheese Pizza") is a very serious offense, and the folks with Nirvana need to answer to 12 angry men on this.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

More likely his PARENTS exploited him.

There ya go.

Nonsense lawsuit

 

[Dana7360]

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.

Exactly.

The record companies love for the bands to tour and promote the new albums.

But the record companies don't get a dime from concert ticket sales and all the merchandise like the tee shirt sales etc.

Concert tours is where musicians make most of their money.

 

[Dekster]

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.

"May" does not equal "definitely". His father was paid by the photographer and the photographer owned the rights.

 

[Canon Shooter]

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.

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...

 

[Canon Shooter]

"May" does not equal "definitely". His father was paid by the photographer and the photographer owned the rights.

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.

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...

 

[Dana7360]

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...

I find it very strange that a professional photographer didn't get a media release.

I didn't know that the parents claim none was signed.

If the photographer has that media release things will become very uncomfortable with the chid and parents.

Personally, I don't believe what people say. I need proof. So the photographer is going to have to come up with a media release. If not, all bets are off.

I've had preprinted media releases with me every time I photograph people for decades. If the person isn't 18 and above the law requires me to have the parents' signature.

We will have to wait to see if there was a release signed or not.

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.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

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

Bet the statute of limitations or laches will stop this case flat.

 

[Canon Shooter]

We will have to wait to see if there was a release signed or not.

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...

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.

ELP was one of my faves. So this is yours?

 

[Dana7360]

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...

I'm not surprised.

I started working with CS&N in the early 90s. I was not media when I started working with them. I was the house photographer.

I did work with them once as a member of the press.

CS&N have a very strict and clear media release they require all photographers to sign.

I wasn't with a specific newspaper. I'm a shooter for Getty Images. CS&N doesn't normally allow Getty or photo companies like that to shoot their shows.

They did me because of my history with the band and the fact that I refused to release a shot of David I took a week or so before he collapsed at Woodstock. They knew I could be trusted.

I sent them a disk of the photos but they have never been published.

I have posted them on line and printed them for friends but no money can ever be exchanged.

I notice that they still have their rule that you can't take a photo directly of their face, it must be taken on the side.

However, that didn't apply to me.

These were taken in 2008 and have never been published.

 

[Dana7360]

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?

Yes I agree. If the media release only gives one time use and specifies that use and it's not that album cover, all bets are off.

However, if that photographer was like me and had releases like the ones I have, it gives the photographer exclusive copyrights and can do anything they want with that photo at any time.

Like I said, I want to see that media release or have confirmation there is none.

I love ELP too. I've worked with the band a few times and worked with Carl Palmer by himself once. The guitar player he had with him was incredible. He was just a teenager but was so gifted with that guitar.

No that cover isn't my shot. The cover with my shot will be released on October 29 2021.

Great cover though.

 

[basquebromance]

 

[boedicca]

30 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.

 

[Hang on Sloopy]

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

Ohhh man your humor is in the ionsphere.................lololol

I would sue the parents for allowing it

Cobain was handy with a shotgun though

 

[Hang on Sloopy]

30 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.

He should sue his imbecilic parents

Remember the song, My Ding A ling??...lol.Should have had some snapping turtles with the kid

 

[Hang on Sloopy]

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!!!

Swimming naked in a pool after 5 minutes doesn't flatter men.....BAWWWWHAHAHA

 

[Hang on Sloopy]

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

You can sue a ham sammich too