Nirvana Nevermind child pornography lawsuit is dismissed
Spencer Elden, who appeared on the iconic album cover as a baby, accused the band of violating child pornography laws
Aux Features Nevermind
Judge Fernando M. Olguin dismissed the lawsuit alleging that the album cover for Nirvana’s Nevermind constitutes child pornography. As reported by SPIN, the case was dismissed by Judge Olguin “with leave to amend.”
In August 2021, Spencer Elden, the man who was featured on the iconic album art as a baby, filed a lawsuit alleging that the photograph of himself as a nude infant was child pornography. A lawyer for Nirvana’s estate fired back at Elden in December 2021, stating that the statute of limitations expired in 2011, and Elden had “spent three decades profiting from his celebrity as the self-anointed ‘Nirvana Baby.’”
Elden’s legal team missed the December 30 deadline to respond to the motion to dismiss the suit, and now they have until January 13. As stated in court documents obtained by SPIN, if Elden’s team makes the deadline, Nirvana’s estate has until January 27 to reply to the refiled suit.
In the original suit, Elden alleged that his legal guardians did not authorize “the use of any images of Spencer or of his likeness, and certainly not of commercial child pornography depicting him.” He also alleged that the image led to him being involved in a “sex trafficking venture” where he “was forced to engage in commercial sexual acts while under the age of 18 years old.” He also claimed in the suit that the photograph had a sexual context, making the tot look like a “sex worker grabbing for a dollar bill.”
As mentioned in the band’s response to the suit, Elden had previously spoken positively about being the infant in the iconic image. In 2016, he posed in a recreation of the album cover for its 25th anniversary, and had recreated the photograph for the record’s 10th, 17th, and 20th anniversaries, as reported by BBC. He also has a tattoo of the album title.
131 Comments
He also claimed in the suit that the photograph had a sexual context, making the tot look like a “sex worker grabbing for a dollar bill.”Lol, oh please
Right? Is he saying he thinks pictures of naked babies are pornography? Seems like a bold stance!
so every single person posting pics of their kids on fb and insta: go directly to jail(daughter puts grandparents on facetime with baby in bath)
(FBI appears from nowhere and arrests both parties simultaneously)
The definition of porn is so vague that it’s largely at the judge’s discretion, but we’re talking about the cover art to the 25th-35th bestselling album of all time. Approximately 1 in 27 Americans bought a copy. Declaring images of the Sistine Chapel child porn would arguably cause fewer problems. It’d be an insane ruling for a longshot civil suit.
the definition of porn is vague…but it isn’t non-existent. I think it is generally something like that it appeals exclusively to prurient interests (or that its appeal to prurient interests greatly outweights any artistic or cultural value). There is no world in which that picture is pornographic, if the judge said it was it would be overruled as abuse of discretion. Despite our reality-challenged world, some shit still gets you thrown out of court. Not to mention that nearly every dismissal is without prejudice/with leave to amend, I almost wonder if it’s worth including that in the article.Apparently the photog paid the guy’s parents $200 and it isn’t clear what kind of release they signed. That sucks and he should have been paid more, but those are contract questions and the statute of limitations apparently expired. For a more interesting look at a blowup about album covers, Vampire Weekend used a pic without full proper permission (unknowingly) for the cover of their album Contra. https://www.theguardian.com/music/2011/aug/16/vampire-weekend-contra-cover-star
I’d call the right to amend info relevant, since I think everyone would really prefer that the judge had dismissed with prejudice – i.e. “Dammit quit wasting this court’s time, get out and do not come back.”
you pretty much can’t do that in this situation. Some places allow you to eventually designate somebody as someone who files repetitive wasteful suits and then there are some other options, but that is a process. So yes people would prefer the judge would do that but it wasn’t a decision that has any weight because that isn’t how it’s ever ever done
Oh I know. As pointed out in other comments, this wasn’t summary judgment it was tossed over missed deadlines (which apparently are fairly elastic anyway).
it’s not 100% clear and I’m not willing to look into it any further: it was tossed for the missed deadline but the court didn’t give them more time to respond, it dismissed and said they can amend and refile…that seems to imply the grounds for dismissal was upholding the motion to dismiss because it wasn’t contested and now they have to come up with something else, but again not spending any more time on this
Problem is there are a lot of judges out there who really shouldn’t be judges and how a case fares is already luck of the draw. Do we really want some power-tripping judge with a personal or political agenda or even who’s just too lazy to process all the details to be able to dismiss with prejudice cases they think have no merit?
well I got one of these a while back, on a postcard. Lock me up.
Famously so, Which is why we have the term “I know it when I see it”
There’s a better argument to be had for the title of Blind Faith’s self titled album which has a topless 11 year old girl holding an airplane on the cover. It was meant to portray innocence or something. Naturally in America they had a different cover, people were more put off by the plane being allegedly phallic (it wasn’t really) than the toplessness.
The Blind Faith album cover pales in comparison to the Scorpion’s Virgin Killer cover. Some countries required that it had to be sold in an opaque black sleeve and in some countries they just switched the cover to a picture of the band instead. It was sold with that cover in the US though and wasn’t considered child pornography. The only country that did declare it be was Sweden, almost three decades later in 2015.It became a huge thing in the early days of Wikipedia. I was pretty actively editing at the time (in science related stuff, not music) when it all blew up, and watched it all unfold. Using the image on the album article created significant controversy within the editing community but multiple huge RFCs resulted in landslides for keeping it. That’s really where the edict that “WP isn’t censored” got solidified. Looney right-wing website World Net Daily ended up reporting the WMF to FBI for hosting child porn but after an investigation they deemed the image was legal. This garnered the attention of a UK based internet watchdog group that, though non-governmental itself, had government funding to regulate the internet. They ran the Cleanfeed filter that was mandated by the government to block child pornography and was included in every major UK ISP. I forget the specifics, but the filter apparently couldn’t just blacklist the URL for just that page, so it ended up blocking access to Wikipedia for the vast majority of UK citizens. That lasted about three days before they reversed course because the image was so old, widely disseminated (you could walk into vinyl shop in London and find it), and wasn’t illegal in the UK.
Jesus Christ that one is crossing more than a few lines. What was wrong with everyone in the 70’s?! Between that and all that happened to Brooke Shields. Definitely an inspiration for Spinal Tap’s Smell the Glove. As anti-Religious Right as I am I can kinda see how people flocked to them with all the sleaze that decade unleashed.
I mean, that seems like a great idea, but for entirely separate reasons. I also think people should be hung by their thumbs for posting pictures of their lunch. If we want to justify this by calling it “salad pornography,” I’m not going to get fussy about the legal particulars.
I got all prurient about those croutons, and you know what ranch dressing looks like?
“I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within the description of “salad”, but I know it when I see it.”
Actually, I’d be fine with that. And it’s got nothing to do with nudity.
I do think that it’s weird just how much baby-butts are shown in commercials and whatnot. It’s not at all porn or sexual, but they also have their image embarrassingly given to the world for their parents’ profit. Something just doesn’t seem right about that. But again, not porn or sue-worthy.
If so, Anne Geddes must be living in constant fear of her door being broken down by the feds. Or Pizzagaters, I guess?
I know that this interview is not like a sworn statement, so giving a completely different interpretation isn’t technically perjury…but let’s go to the tape on what he thought the image meant a few years ago: https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2015/jan/16/thats-me-picture-spencer-elden-nirvana-nevermind
Remember when Pornography didn’t really have a definition, but one would know it when they see it. If someone sees this picture as ‘porn’ then that’s on them. smh.
Oh well. Whatever. Never mind
As you were. ..As I want you to be.
This lawsuit was a money grab from the start.
First you want me to pay attention to this lawsuit, then you tell me nevermind? Something tells me this kid has been trouble since he was in utero. They ought to scrub his brain with bleach. Where does he come from, from the muddy banks of the Wishkah? Something something incesticide.
He claimed the picture said Rape Me, but really he owes the band all apologies.
I blew my wad on my last joke, but I bet a few of you are still going to milk it for a while.
You Know You’re Right.
Can youah believeah the nerve ona this guy?
It’s hard to bargle nawdle zouss with all these marbles in my mouth.
Load up on puns, bring your friends
I’d hate to be this guy’s monkey wrench. Wait a minute…
Well, big me.Wait a minute…
And the award for most ungapatchka post goes to you.
We need more judges in cases like this to impose sanctions. He should have to pay the $100,000 Nirvana’s attorneys have definitely raked in for this bs.
Is it BS though? Some of his claims seem over the top but if he never got paid for the use of his image that is super sketchy. I am sure if I took this article and posted it on a website I created AV Club would be pretty pissed off.
This is why people want tort reform. When I was sued for malpractice, I was served one day short of the statute of limitations expiring and they still didn’t have an Affidavit of Merit, which is a statement from a doc in the same profession saying something was done wrong. So I asked my lawyer why it wasn’t dismissed the next day. The judge had given them a 90 day extension…because, as she said, “that’s what judges do.” As 90 days rolled around I asked her if we were done since they still didn’t have an affidavit. “Well…the judge will probably give them another 30 days.” After 28 months, they couldn’t find another oncologist in the whole country to say I had done anything wrong, so it was finally dismissed, but the judge gave them 6 months to refile. My lawyer told me “that almost never happens” and it didn’t, but it is extremely stressful to be held in limbo like that for almost a year after the statute has expired, wondering if you are going to have to spend a couple hundred hours or more defending yourself from some bullshit like this.
I dunno, it sounds kind of like the system worked in your case…those affidavits aren’t required for most lawsuits, no? did you even have to answer the complaint? I mean…extensions for 28 months are absurd of course, but anyone can technically sue anybody anywhere for anything, it will just eventually get thrown out…and it’s almost always technically without prejudice in nearly every case, hell almost up to the end of the whole thing you can amend with leave and fuck around as much as the judge will let you. The system currently requires that the judge say something like that any attempt to amend whatsoever will 100% be futile…they just need to be more aggressive in granting fees to the other side or in granting extensions only conditional upon their guarantee to pay the other side’s fees if they don’t follow up
The system worked eventually. But I had to wait for months beyond the supposed deadline for it to work and that sucked. Waiting for eventually to finally get there is miserable.We did have to answer. The original complaint had the standard “respond within 15 days or summary judgement.”
I am surprised that it wasn’t answer within 15 days of them filing that affidavit…which is necessary to any judgment in their favor and in fact to the lawsuit being technically even filed (in some states)…next time ask the judge to delay your time to answer until 15 days after their complaint is effectively filed: sauce for the goose sauce for the gander.“Waiting for eventually to finally get there is miserable.” – tell me about it, I can barely come out of this bunker before the statute of limitations expires in like 10 sta—-ahem ahem, uhhh, such nice weather we’re having!
extensions for 28 months are absurd of course
You’ve found one problem.
but anyone can technically sue anybody anywhere for anything
And you’ve found the other.
Well, sort of. There are a lot of places with civil cover sheets that require you to identify what your lawsuit is about…but a lot of people just check the Other box and make stuff up.
Why do judges grant multiple extensions for providing necessary paperwork, especially for a suit past the statute of limitations? Turning in the work is like…lawyers’ one job.
The challenge is that a happy medium is really needed here, but is difficult to find. I have many physicians in my family and know that the risk of getting drawn into frivolous lawsuits is a huge burden that can really discourage caring, competent doctors. However, strict restrictions on tort law can also be very problematic. The Dr. Death (Christopher Duntsch) case really highlighted the abuses that can occur in a state like Texas where there are strict timing limits, expensive reports required and an overall limit of $250K in damages. Without the threat of medical malpractice suits there’s little incentive for health systems to spread the word about incompetent/dangerous physicians. As a result patients had to pursue Duntsch through the criminal system in order to prevent him from practicing and hurting others. Meanwhile, negligent healthcare providers of all types are drawn to TX: https://www.facingsouth.org/2021/07/dr-death-shows-how-texas-law-gives-negligent-health-care-providers-free-passUnfortunately, something as simple as time limits may penalize patients who have symptoms emerge later, or are misdiagnosed and don’t realize issues are connected to prior treatment. And with the high cost of medical care and far from universal insurance, there’s a real risk that people could be bankrupted by negligent care or even die. Tort reform thus works better in countries like the UK with universal medical care to provide some kind of a safety net. It’s not great that our system has many patients risking bankruptcy and serious harm on the one side while good doctors face high malpractice premiums and getting tied up for years with unfounded lawsuits on the other – all while dangerous doctors continue to hurt people in places like TX.
Without the threat of medical malpractice suits there’s little incentive for health systems to spread the word about incompetent/dangerous physicians.That’s the complete opposite of what happen with Duntsch. His staggering incompetence and willful negligence wasn’t reported by anyone involved because of the fear of lawsuits. Baylor Plano ended up revoking his surgical privileges, knowing he was a menace, but then came to a deal with his lawyer that allowed Duntsch to resign and get a glowing recommendation letter so long as he wouldn’t sue them! Baylor Plano basically said, get out of our hair. Go somewhere else to maim and kill people where we can’t be held responsible.Tort reform basically falls apart in a for-profit healthcare system. The impetus to avoid potentially costly lawsuits often ends up being much stronger than the concern for a patient’s outcomes. Shuffling a clearly negligent physician out of your employ makes much more sense, from a financial liability standpoint, than reporting them. And, yeah, the monetary award limits many states have on a host of crimes is beyond ridiculous. “Hey, sorry, you were rendered a paraplegic because your surgeon was drunk and ripping lines, but here’s $250K. It’s the most we can do. Which should last you about a year with your new medical needs. We’re square, right?”
There are two types of lawsuits at issue here – medical malpractice lawsuits by patients and defamation lawsuits against former employers by doctors who received bad references. Tort reform only addresses the former while leaving medical systems exposed on the latter. So indeed that is exactly what happened with Duntsch – because patients weren’t going to sue hospitals, while Duntsch himself might, hospitals and medical practices just didn’t want to deal with the problem.
Most people want tort reform because giant corporations told them they want it, and those “tort reforms” are what will make it even more impossibly difficult to recover damages against giant corporations – more so than now, when the entire bench is running active interference for them by drastically reducing all awards, even in those rare instances when the bought-and-paid-for legislatures haven’t passed laws mandating that the damages be capped.It’s especially bad for punitive damages – you know, the one hope that little people have of inflicting a wound significant enough upon a giant corporation to persuade them that behaving badly is a bad idea.So no, this is not why people want tort reform, and it won’t be the kind they get, if they get it. If the people get more tort reform, they will get it good and hard, right up their asses.
you didnt sue them back? the system fucks both ways. take their house.
It’s a tough balance figuring out where it makes sense to begin imposing sanctions. You want lower-income people to have access to the courts, but loser pays laws and or even the risk to an attorney of being sanctioned would discourage that. I’d just like to see judges set and stick to reasonable deadlines, and not be afraid to dismiss bullshit like this one. The counterbalance to our system where anyone can sue for anything needs to be quick dismissals of nonsense cases.
Agreed, but we have years of statements and interviews from this dickhead saying he loves being the pool baby. They’re not under oath or in court but they should be enough to show this was bad faith litigation and grant sanctions.
If there’s a poster child (literally) then this is the guy, for sure.
Eh, is it though? CP is CP regardless of how the children (present or past) feel about it. It’s like stat rape times a billion.What’s per se sauce for the goose is per se sauce for the gander. If this guy was, under the law, involved in CP, then he’s entitled to sue. And like I said, if there’s a per se idea in the relevant criminal law that this shit damages kids, then it’s not moral to retract that per se idea when transitioning over to the civil arena, where said kid is suing for compensation for the damage he suffered.The lynchpin of this case, legally, is that this plainly was not CP in the first place. Morally, sure, complain all you want about this kid being a money-grubbing (and fame-grubbing) hypocrite. But it’s not appropriate to try to leverage the legal system to punish him for those sins.
A) if it were CP, I think the FBI might have noticed it being on a million t-shirts and posters across the entire country…because somebody says “hey the TV show Friends is CP!” doesn’t mean you have to treat that seriously, that makes the law into an idiot.B) https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2015/jan/16/thats-me-picture-spencer-elden-nirvana-nevermind “it’s always been a positive thing and opened doors for me.”
A+B = sanctions for bad faith litigation
Some judges in the US will order the plantiffs to pay for the defendants court fees if a really frivolous lawsuit goes to court and then gets dismissed immediately. Nirvana has enough money that they really don’t care, but for the average person a lawsuit will screw you up
I remember Bill Maher alluding to how much the lawsuit Trump’s people filed against him when he said Trump was related to an orangutan cost him…and I don’t think Maher got attorneys’ fees despite it clearly being frivolous.
This is a hell of an option to have on your website:
When automation goes wrong
I mean who wants ageing child porn?
“Ageing”?
Peak marketing algorithm achieved.
I wonder if this is a sting operation. Quick, admins! How many people signed up for those alerts?
Pete Townshend?
I got a Community notification for this!?
I’ll take ‘Ageing’ for $100, Alex.
I think the sentence that makes the most sense there is, “Child pornography ageing, never mind nirvana.”
“Nirvana never minds ageing child pornography”
Nevermind the child pornography?
In 2016, he posed in a recreation of the album cover for its 25th anniversary, and had recreated the photograph for the record’s 10th, 17th, and 20th anniversaries, as reported by BBC. He also has a tattoo of the album title. You can’t judge how he processed his trauma. He is a VICTIM!
He’s been gaslit since childhood!
You joke (I assume, anyway?), but it does occur to me that sometimes people who survive trauma, especially as kids, can end up actively embracing the person/thing that caused it as a coping mechanism. Perhaps doubly so in this case, where the photo is considered iconic and well loved.Having said that, I don’t personally think that’s the case here, for a bunch of reasons, but I guess you never know.
Given that this is the internet – and in particular this site’s comments – i can’t tell whether you’re joking or not.
But i’ll say that i can understand having a different feeling about any given life experience as one ages. To realize at some point, “Hang on… I thought that was fun, but now that i’ve grown up some… That was actually kinda fucked up. Right?”
This is exactly what I keep thinking when I read about this case. I did a lot of dumb shit when I was young, and had some shit happen to me along the way. When I was younger these were all framed as funny party stories from my youth (and most still are), but there is some dark shit in those stories that as I’ve become older I realize were not really okay. And I certainly wouldn’t be bragging about them, it’s actually a bit depressing and I wish I could go back and let my younger self know that I didn’t have to put up with that shit.
And I was complicit in all the shit I did, I wasn’t a baby.
I understand that there is also a class action suit against The Bare Naked Ladies.
Hopefully by Lionel Hutz. He handled the case against the fraudulent movie The Neverending Story!
I don’t use the word hero very often, but you are the Greatest Hero in American history.
Does he look like a man who had all he could eat?
It could have been me!
I beg your pardon…
Well, I’m still watching….
Does this sound like someone who has had all he can eat?
I always loved how Troy had no idea who Billy Joel was but was apparently a huge fan of both the Barenaked Ladies and the Traveling Wilburys.
And Sophie B Hawkins
Yeah, but that’s Canadian court. It’s a little different.
That’s the court where my girlfriend works! You haven’t met her but she’s totally a real person.
Oh, “Bare” That makes more sense.
I guess that explains why I can’t get my water bill, a militant contingent of Toronto municipal staff won’t stop their decades-long vendetta against BNL.
Also against the producer of Naked Lunch.
I already sued them for making me say underwear and won
Oh yeah, your settlement check is under there.
Dammit!
Your comment made me laugh the hardest I have all week. Thanks! 🙂
A long-standing defamation lawsuit was recently dismissed when it was unquestionably proven that surfers are indeed, buttholes.
I’m shocked — shocked! — that this judge didn’t find 30 million people guilty of possession and distribution of child pornography 25+ years after the image regularly appeared on t-shirts worldwide.
Frankly, I’d like a few psychologists to weigh in, because this is beyond most of our understanding.
The lead singer of Puddle of Mudd can now breathe a sigh of relief. His position as the worst thing to happen to Nirvana’s legacy remains intact.
“WHO HAS SUMMONED ME?”
Oh I was hoping someone would post this cover. Although the exaggerated effects kind of obscure the “unwitting, deadpan self parody” element of the cover.The other fantastic part is that they’re covering the Unplugged version, which is a fine example of how subtle changes can really improve a song – About a Girl is an solid track on Bleach but a stone classic on Unplugged. Rather than asking how they could tweak the song to put their own stamp on it, Puddle of Mudd tried to do a straight cover but chose a key that was out of their singer’s range, so the whole thing sounds like hot garbage. Which, to be fair, is kind of the Puddle of Mudd brand. So maybe it’s the world’s most successful cover?
Blurry was still a good song though
I’d never heard this cover before. Watched this video and thought they must be adding more effects than just half speed there to make it sound like that. So I searched out the original and, no. Thank you for this gift.
…okay but like, if he was involved in an underage sex trafficking ring shouldn’t he know one or two more people to sue than just nirvana?
Is this suit doesn’t work out, he’s going to tweak the language and sue his parents. That’ll show them, trying to charge him rent.
Yea like I also doubt that Nirvana publicized that it was him in the picture. They never met him because they weren’t there for the shooting in the first place, which is a sore point for him because hes tried to reach out to the two surviving members. Seems like hes focusing on the wrong people
Huh. A sensible decision and may this dude stop basing his entire life on the album cover. FFS.
To be clear, this wasn’t a dismissal on the merits of the case, it was based on missing procedural deadlines, and all the Nevermind kid and his lawyers need to do to continue with the lawsuit is edit the allegations in his complaint a bit. Judges do this frequently with the intent of simply motivating a party to comply with court orders, not necessarily to dispose of the lawsuit. And for what it’s worth, the motion to dismiss from the surviving members of Nirvana and their co-defendants isn’t seeking dismissal on the merits either. They are seeking dismissal based on a statute of limitations argument, which is smart – lawsuits, even meritless ones, are aggravating things to deal with, and dismissing this on statute of limitations grounds would put an end to it much quicker than actually doing anything to sort out this kid’s ludicrous claims.I have very little doubt that should this case ever get to the point of a motion for summary judgment that the court will rule handily in favor of Nirvana & Co., but right now all that’s being dealt with are i’s that were never dotted and t’s that were never crossed.
Oh, I’m aware. This was a hope that it would deter “kid who’s dining out on this cover… still” to keep up this stupid shit. It’s fairly revolting. No one would know it was him – if not for him.
I’m guessing it’s because Grohl is too nice a person to do this, but the surest way to end it once and for all would be to counter-sue for defamation. Calling public figures child pornographers at least merits some sort of response. They can then keep dragging this guy through the courts for as long as he wants to keep it up. I doubt he has the money or stomach to do so for long.
Just sue the guy for $1 and a public apology.
and then grohl can form a grunge band and call it Spencer Elden
Well, now we all know you’re definitely not a lawyer lol
…which version of the album art is on YOUR phone?
I replaced it with the original Black Crowes’ Amorica cover, in the name of simple good taste.
Still better than that one Scorpions album cover.
That title / cover combo still boggles the mind. Guess they figured if it was okay for Blind Faith and Zeppelin then why not grab some notoriety? There’s a fine line between clever and stupid.
The answer is…none…none more creepy…
you never hear her complaining, do you?
Looks like this kid… [sunglasses]…didn’t grab the money after all. YEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Elden’s legal team missed the December 30 deadline to respond to the motion to dismiss the suit, and now they have until January 13. I’m not a lawyer and maybe something is missing here, but isn’t getting a new deadline after missing the original sort of against the point of deadlines?
I am one, and while I think the US legal system is generally a sick fucking joke, it DOES seriously endeavor to make sure everyone with a complaint gets their day in court, and no one is ever denied that on account of technicalities or administrative fuckups. A judge would rather extend deadlines and grant multiple leaves to amend than deny such, and find themselves overturned on appeal.
Time for Nirvana to start slapping that image on any product they can and really piss the guy off. Hey, how about a line of Nirvana baby food??
Or fishing tackle!
waterproof diapers?
Getting these vibes from this guy
Oh well. Whatever. Never mind.
Oh well, whatever, never mind.
My question is would anyone know he was the baby on the cover if he/his family didnt publicize it? I’m only asking because it not like Nirvana was would go around like “yea the baby on the cover is Spencer Elden” right? unless they did in an interview when asked but I doubt they even knew his name because he was the baby of the photographers friend.
Point is I can see being uncomfortable because millions of people have a pic of your vienna sausage in their house but everything else after is not on them.
big win for child porn