The Nevermind baby is suing Nirvana for child pornography
Spencer Elden, who as an infant was featured nude on the cover of Nirvana’s Nevermind album, seeks damages
Music News Nevermind
There are few album covers more iconic than Nirvana’s Nevermind. Heck, there are few album covers more recreated than Nirvana’s Nevermind. But while the cover has long been considered a statement about capitalism, the now-grown infant from the cover of Nevermind has a new interpretation of the photo: child porn.
Spencer Elden, better known as the Nevermind baby, now a 30-year-old man, is suing the surviving band members Dave Grohl, Krist Novoselic, and the Kurt Cobain estate, among others, for the use of his image for the cover of their landmark album. He filed suit against the band Tuesday in Los Angeles, accusing them of violating child pornography laws, and is seeking damages, legal fees, an injunction that would prohibit the distribution of the photo, and a trial by jury. The suit says that the inclusion of the dollar makes the infant look like a “sex worker grabbing for a dollar bill,” describing the photograph as a “sex trafficking venture” that forced Elden to “engage in commercial sexual acts while under the age of 18 years old.”
According to Variety, the suit states:
Defendants intentionally commercially marketed Spencer’s child pornography and leveraged the shocking nature of his image to promote themselves and their music at his expense. Defendants used child pornography depicting Spencer as an essential element of a record promotion scheme commonly utilized in the music industry to get attention, wherein album covers posed children in a sexually provocative manner to gain notoriety, drive sales, and garner media attention, and critical reviews.
Elden has long stated that he had a complicated relationship with the album cover. However, as noted by Variety, he’s recreated it several times, posing in the water for 10th, 17th, 20th, and 25th anniversaries. Nevertheless, he claims that his parents were never properly compensated for the shoot, saying they received $200 for the now-iconic photograph. In addition, the suit alleges that they never even signed a release for the photo—let alone royalties on all the different pieces of merchandise his image has appeared on over the last three decades. In recent years, his relationship with the photo has soured, going as far as to tell GQ Australia in 2016 that the picture was “fucked up” and that he’s “pissed off about it.”
In a 2008 interview with NPR, Elden’s father recalls shooting the cover. He said the photographer Kirk Weddle called him and asked, “Hey Rick, wanna make 200 bucks and throw your kid in the drink?” He continues: “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!”
Spencer Elden claims “lifelong damages” due to the cover and seeks $150,000 from each defendant, including the band members, Courtney Love, various record labels, and the executor and managers of Kurt Cobain’s estate. He also names former Nirvana drummer Chad Channing, who didn’t play on the album. All told, Nevermind sold more than 30 million records to date, making it one of the best-selling albums of all time.
281 Comments
Is this the shittiest cover art for a classic album? Any other contenders?
https://www.smoothradio.com/features/best-albums-with-worst-covers/
I’m gonna step up and mildly defend Magical Mystery Tour; it’s not the best Beatles cover, but that orange and yellow cloud background is pretty trippy. Part of me does suspect that only the Beatles could have gotten away with the cover of the White Album, though.
I mean, yeah. The context of them being the biggest band in the world at the time is what made the White Album cover (along with the simple The Beatles album title) so impactful. That doesn’t take anything away from it at all. Context matters. You have to take it into account when making art.
…and only Spinal Tap could’ve gotten away with the “Smell the Glove” cover.
*Scorpions have entered the chat*seriously, they actually had one album cover banned just this week.
I bet they fucking deserve it.Seriously, German rock fans like me are so embarassed for the fucking Scorpions. They are so stupid and unlikable. Thank God for Kraftwerk, they made us look so much better.Hell, even Rammstein, ominous as they are, contribute more to our international reputation than “HeRe i Am!!!! rOCk yOu LiKe a hUrRicaNe!!!!”.
Sails of Charon is better.
The sad thing is that Virgin Killer isn’t even available on streaming services, even with the replacement band photo cover.
Wait, so they won’t stream the music because of the album cover?
“It’s such a fine line between stupid and, uh, clever”. Which is applicable to most things including album covers.
Just got a new iPad Pro recently, and had this engraved on its back (that is now obscured by a cover):
Well, you should have seen the cover they wanted to do! It wasn’t a glove, believe me.
Don’t forget their album Break Like the Wind.
none more black…
What’s wrong with being sexy?
Well Spinal Tap did do the Black Album.
I contend that if you forget how iconic they are and actually spend a while looking at them, all of Fleetwood Mac’s classic album covers are actually really crappy. Mirage is probably the worst, but Rumours does have Mick Fleetwood with stupid dangly balls.
Aww, I really love the Mirage cover
“… all of Fleetwood Mac’s classic album covers are actually really crappy…”This tracks though, because Fleetwood Mac fucking sucks.
I agree with this, and I have the gatefold of Kiln House tattoo’d on my shoulder. That artwork was done by Christine McVie before she officially joined the group, which may be why it is such an outlier.
It took me decades to notice the balls
Even Bare Trees?
It’s no Penguin.
Houses of the Holy anyone?
I see your Houses of the Holy and raise you Blind Faith.
Blind Faith says hold my beer.
I never liked Led Zeppelin III.
It’s one of the most iconic album art of all time.
I don’t think it’s shitty at all. Commerce corrupts innocence. It’s honestly pretty good thematically.
The cover of the Blind Faith album is probably a tad closer to child pornography than Nevermind.
Paranoid in a walk. God, it’s ridiculous.
Hounds of Love
Pet Sounds wins this contest every time.
Prince’s 1999 is god-awful.
Honestly have no idea with what Springsteen was thinking about for the cover of “Born in the USA.” He doesn’t seem to be the type who wants people to gaek at his ass but you never know
It’s a classic to some though a bit obscure:
Oh for the sake of fuck.I get that he just wants some cash, but this is not child pornography. If you look at a baby’s dick on an album cover and anything regarding sex or porn enters your mind, you’re the one with a serious problem.
Exactly this. Civil suits of this nature will often use inflammatory language to hasten a just condition. He should not have to suffer for his parents’ lack of consideration as it is indisputably his image splayed across millions of pieces of merchandise.
“suffer”, “ lack of consideration” lol. “indisputably his image” lol. it looks like every white baby ever.Hey Nirvana estate, you can use a photo from when I was a naked baby for free any time if you make it the new cover to Nevermind, I’d be fucking honored.
you slut!
Let’s not be ridiculous, you can ask for $60.
Then he should sue his parents, not Nirvana. Can’t touch the band because this shit ain’t porn and no way it’s going anywhere. If his issue is really with the image, then he wouldn’t have filed the lawsuit forever connecting his name with said baby.
That’s what I was thinking. The only way he’s suffering “lifelong damages” is if he continues telling everyone he’s the kid on the album cover. And he wouldn’t have recreated the pose repeatedly over the years. His “suffering would end pretty quickly if he just shut his mouth, because nobody really cares anyway.Also, seeking $150,000 from each defendant, including people who didn’t have anything to do with the album, is pretty small change considering how much money Nevermind has made over the years. His lawyers are basically hoping all the defendants just settle and they get a payday without having to actually go to court.I predict one of three outcomes:One, they do all pony up to make this go away and we see a story next week that the suit was settled for an “unspecified sum”Two, the defendants’ lawyers answer with “bring it on” and they drop the suit because they know a judge will laugh them out of courtThree, they proceed and a judge actually does laugh them out of court, along with a hearty “Nevermind!”
I mean, you could say that about photos and videos of kids too
There’s a picture of me in a bathtub from when I was a kid that always bothered me. It’s about time I sued my dead grandparents.
That’s totally the same thing as being on one of the most famous album covers ever
THEY WENT TRIPLE PLATINUM!!!
Seventeen years ago my mom showed my fiance a picture of me as an naked infant on a rug. Maybe I should sue. I mean, I was really embarrassed for a few seconds.I mean, discounting the facts: It was pretty much a stock photo everybody took of their kids throughout the entire 20th CenturyIt wasn’t really pornography (all you could see was my bare baby ass)My fiance had already seen me naked as a grown man numerous times at that pointAnd she married me despite seeing said bare baby assI should still have a case, right?
after that whole disgusting ‘children on youtube’ mess, i’d strongly disagree with you.
paedos are really gross.
What?
Not too sure what you’re getting at here? How does this invalidate the earlier point?
I mean, he was kind of hung for a baby.Reading the complaint, some of what is alleged in that dispute is kind of gross.
I mean, he was kind of hung for a baby. Awful but hilarious!
So he and I have something in common: I’m also kind of hung for a baby.
I actually wonder if his complaint would be greeted with less mockery if he had simply said he wasn’t fairly compensated for his image and left out the whole child porn stuff.
The issue of fair compensation is the only part of the compliant that holds water legally, becuase the image is clearly not pornographic. But that’s not going to get a bunch of headlines, and part of the strategy here is clearly to bring a lot of PR pressure to force a settlement.
I also suspect that there was some kind of contract between his parents and Nirvana which might make a difference.
My understanding is that once your picture is taken, the picture belongs to the photographer. In fact I could have sworn there was just another lawsuit in the last couple of years regarding an album cover or otherwise popular photograph where the courts reiterated that.
The photo itself belongs to the photographer but they don’t automatically have the right to your likeness if it’s used commercially. A model will always sign a release okaying use of their likeness on a professional shoot.If the parents signed a release giving permission, which I’d expect they probably did just because no major label’s legal department is going to accept an album cover photo if that document’s not in place, then he’s out of luck since they can make that decision for a minor. Which is probably why he’s going with this overreach… Maybe he doesn’t know for sure what paperwork is actually out there.
That and the fact that the photographer paid them for the photo session. There really isn’t any standing for a case here.
Did anyone care when Jefferson Starship did this?
Apparently Kurt Cobain thought the same thing.Also, around the same year he gave the interview to GQ Australia for the 25th anniversary – where he was complaining that no members of Nirvana wanted to put a piece in the art show he was having with Shepard Fairey – he also wanted to re-take the photo in the nude, so apparently he has no problems dropping trou for publicity.
https://web.archive.org/web/20170326151737/http://nypost.com/2016/09/23/nirvana-baby-recreates-iconic-album-cover-25-years-later/
why isn’t that girl from the Scorpions Virgin Killer album cover not suing the band??
According to the infallible Wikipedia, as an adult looking back on the whole thing, she’s totally cool with it.
I mean the kid’s not even that hot.
That’s the rational response. However, many states have extremely broad definitions of child porn, so it technically might be considered as such
There is no state that could successfully prosecute for child porn on that album cover. It would become a First Amendment issue, and would almost certainly be overturned by the Supreme Court based on precedent.
He’s also doing the lawsuit for spite. He wanted Nirvana to be part of an art exhibition he was doing and they didn’t fall all over themselves to treat him like he’s their best friend and have someone throw rose petals at his feet.
I’m guessing the band members themselves had zero input into the cover art.
If this baby is female, (a) it doesn’t make the cover, and (b) if it did, we’d all feel very differently about it now.
Not to mention, “life long damage?” From what, getting told to buzz off by people tired and bored of hearing that, “Dude, I’m the Nirvana baby.” Who recognizes anyone from just a baby picture?
We’ve fully transitioned from idiotic lawsuits to the surreal.
Thirty years old and he’s still a baby.
This whole thing feels like it was made up by the Onion
Hit the nail on the head
I once submitted ‘Want To Feel Old? The ‘Nevermind’ Baby Doesn’t Fit In That Pool Anymore’ to Hard Times
So basically like everything else we see in the world now, right? I swear The Onion and Idiocracy were meant to be satire and a warning, yet here were are doing our best to surpass them.
Seriously, if you binge on the Onion for about 10 minutes and then switch to a “real” website I guarantee that first headline will seem like it has to be a joke.
If you’re not familiar with the Hard times, they’re like an Onion for the punk/rock scene and they published this story hours beforre this story broke the news:
It is getting harder to distinguish satire from reality these days!
Can’t comment on the validity of the suit and don’t care to. But I’d be pretty pissed if one of my naked baby photos from something stupid my parents did was being used on merch and passed around without any compensation coming my way
Yeah, I get it.
lol you do?
Lol? Lol!
lol why
We understand that his Dick is much bigger now. That’s alright, buddy, come in off the balcony now.
Then he should probably sue for that and not child pornography, because frankly that makes more sense.This suit makes him seem like an idiot.
But this way he gets a lot of headlines. The hope is that the ‘bad’ PR will force a settlement. The problem is that I doubt very few people are going to side with him on this.
Yeah – you can follow the logic behind yelling ‘child porn’. People will listen in a way that they wouldn’t if you just yelled ‘royalties’. But I think that yelling ‘child porn’ in this case is inclining general sentiment against him.
Then he should probably sue for that and not child pornography, because frankly that makes more sense.This suit makes him seem like an idiot.Like I said: Can’t comment on the suit so I’m not going to. I’m not gonna try and argue with people what does and doesn’t constitute CP. Y’all can have fun doing that without me.
So sue your parents for whatever money they received for it? Photos generally belong to the person who took them, not the model, and no one is judging someone based on a photo of them as a baby.
i think you’ll get over it
He was compensated, plus he had the honour of being on the cover of one of the most iconic albums of all time.
“I’d be pretty pissed if one of my naked baby photos from something stupid my parents did was being used on merch and passed around without any compensation coming my way.”Would you really be that pissed? And at whom would you be pissed at more than your parents? I’d simply use it as an interesting anecdote whenever I’m in need of an interesting anecdote.
Yeahhh like part of me gets this. I don’t think it’s porn, but they did profit off of his likeness, and his parents had no respect for what future-him would want
There’s an argument to be made for personal autonomy here. I think it opens up a whole host of issues that maybe we could look into as a society, but could drastically change the way entertainment is made.The Olsen twins, for instance, were on screen since they were infants. Presumably at some point, someone asked them if they like doing what they’re doing, but whether or not they answered in the affirmative is almost irrelevant. They couldn’t consent to their image being used when they couldn’t talk, and I’m not sure if there are any legal loopholes for them to be able to truly consent before they were actually 18. The entertainment industry surely has a lot guidelines on how this is done, but I think it’s only in the past ten years that it stopped habitually ruining child entertainers as a matter of course. Is there any recourse for them on their futures being decided for them? Maybe you could argue that they turned out fine, but would that be relevant? You could make a strong argument for Britney perhaps suing Disney for the Mickey Mouse Club throwing her entire future off course.
I don’t think the subject is worth dismissing out of hand. But right now, the state of things is that guardians have the right to make these decisions for people under 18, and it’s hard to argue that anyone was actually taken advantage of here.
Yeah, I also would rather not see MORE 30 year olds playing high schoolers.
“You know, it’s amazing that it’s legal for kids to be actors. How is that not child labor? I didn’t know what I was signing up for — I was three.”–Sarah Lynn from the Bojack Horseman episode “That’s Too Much, Man”
“Fired, Aren’t I” = Spencer Elden?
he deserves some money
lol
He really, really doesn’t.
No, he doesn’t.
He got money when they paid him/his parents for the photoshoot. Since when to random album cover models get royalties off of record sales?
He was a baby floating underwater for a few seconds, and people bought the album because it was great not because he was on the cover. Absolutely zero surplus value was stolen.
“Hey! Wait! I filed a dumb complaint.”
*slow clap*
Don’t sell the kids for food!
Well played, although that was on a different album.
I’m a negative creep & I’ll sue!
Take your goddamn star
I feel stupid and litigious
I notice the pic isn’t included in the article.Don’t want a repeat of that whole Hulk Hogan sort of kerfuffle.
The Blond Faith kid got 40 pounds and no horse. Apparently they promised her a horse.
Blond Faith!
Man, that story is messed up. Apparently the photographer approached her 14-year-old sister first but she was “too old”. Very Humbert Humbert
Was the photographer Ser Meryn Trant?
It’s like the cover was foreshadowing his future.
What a douche
Um…This would be the same guy who was happily parodying the album cover, only a few years ago?
The same guy that has “Never Mind” tatted proudly on his bird-chest?This you, bro?
Naw, that baby’s got pants on!
According to stories at the time he wanted to recreate the image fully nude but was talked out of it.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-37478523
“The people need to know I ain’t got baby dick anymore!”
“I have a big boy dick and I’ll prove it.”
common sense prevailed.
Yeah, he could have just remained in obscurity and nobody would ever have been the wiser, but then his cool story wouldn’t have been getting him laid all through his teens and 20’s. Now that the reality that he’s not a rock star and will need to work a mundane job for the next three decades like the rest of us has settled in, it’s time to get his. I realize that as a baby he could never have agreed to this, but pretty sure that any model or artist of an album cover receives a flat fee and is not entitled to royalties in the millions. His lawyer should have just negotiated a reasonable settlement.
That was likely the first ploy, which I assume was met with laughter.I am curious to see how it plays out and if by chance he does win (I doubt it) if there would be any talk of prosecuting his parents as active participants in their little “Sex Trafficking Venture”.You know, since his dad took him there and received compensation for said photograph…
“His lawyer should have just negotiated a reasonable settlement.”My guess is that this was attempted and met with something along the lines of “fuck you – take the case to court and get ordered to compensate us for our expenses.” And here we are.
Didn’t he also storm the capitol?
If I was counsel for the defense, I’d be arguing that it’s these recreation pictures he voluntarily made that initiated all the ‘suffering’ and ‘damages’ he’s claiming. How else are people going to identify him as that baby?I’d also ask why his father, who sold him out to these ‘child pornographers’ as the suit claims for $200, isn’t a defendant.
Im glad that he was enough of a dumbfuck to do this before filing this frivolous lawsuit, as it virtually guarantees that he will lose. I hope he goes dead fucking broke chasing this dumb bullshit claim.
That’s not John Krasinski?
yes, he’s now broke, and cant figure a better way to get money.
Nice victim blaming. Victims can express their trauma in their own ways.
It’s not victim blaming to point out the ‘victim’ has been profiting off of their ‘trauma’ and continues to find outlets to do so. Were I a victim of sex trafficking or child pornography I would feel pretty pissed off about this.
Fuck off, concern troll.
Yeah, he looks like a guy who’s suffering “lifelong damages.”
I found an article where he recreated the photo for the 25th anniversary. He has a fucking tattoo that says “nevermind” on his chest. He’s clung to his 15 minutes for 25 years, and now he’s an out of work street artist looking for a free ride.Fair use, motherfucker. Sue that. Sue Wikipedia, sue Amazon, sue fucking Google.
and now he’s an out of work street artist looking for a free ride.Is there such a thing as a working street artist? How could you tell the difference?
Working street artists usually wear heels and fishnets.
I misread that as heelys.
He reached the point where young women in bars were like “What’s Nevermind?”
Sue everyone! Bring all your eyeglasses and all your shoes. So you have them.
Does Chad Channing have a dime to his name?
he almost had a dollar
Teenage angst has paid off well…but not for him.
If the Nevermind cover is child pornography then Ann Geddes better watch the fuck out.
Also, the Sistine Chapel, but I assume the catholic church knows the drill by now.
They’ll just move it to another cathedral.
Like the Pope’s Mitre, it’s old hat.
> Like the Pope’s Mitre, it’s old hat.
getout.gif
Given the recent history of the Church vis a vis children, the Sistine Chapel might be used as evidence for the plaintiff.
And HOW to drill!
What about the Coppertone kid?! Won’t someone think of the Coppertone kid!?!?
Jodie Foster? I think she turned out okay.
“That one is a bit of a gray area” – Homer Simpson, 1994.
Manneken Pis laughs in water sports.
Had this conversation with friends with this weekend. Apple announced that it’s going to be flagging pictures that may be sexually explicit of children. I appreciate the intent, but does this include baby butt pictures? My kid is 17. That puts her right at the age where we have the knock-off Anne Geddes picture from JCPenney portrait studios of her in a diaper with the roses background.
I’m not sure if this is a genuine question, but their plan only involves detecting images that match hashes of known images of child pornography and abuse. There’s no AI image recognition being used to flag images, at least not on Apple’s part.
Oh shit – sounds like it’s time to move to a non-extradition country.
Apple announced that it’s going to be flagging pictures that may be sexually explicit of children. Apple said they were only going to be searching for already known photos of a criminal nature, re: child pornography, so all those baby naked on a bearskin rug photos should be fine. Of course, Apple going through your private photos for any reason is a whole other can of worms…
I wonder if Blind Faith ever got into any legal shit for having a topless 13 year old girl on their album cover.
Scorpions original cover for Virgin Killer also had similar issues, except it was a ten year old. Aside from that, it’s a killer record. Wikipedia at your own risk.
To quote a cousin of mine “Anne Geddes is just a child abuser”. – Ca. mid 90’s.
Cupid is pissed. Along with all of those “Child urinating” statues all over Europe.
I tried to create a gif on gify using the album cover and it wasn’t allowed to be posts in the site because it didn’t meet “community standards” and I’m guessing by that they mean visible baby dick
Maybe I’m missing the point, but did the photographer really convince the parents to agree to this by saying “wanna throw yer baby in the drink?” over and over?
I’d try and drown him too if I knew he was going to turn out like this
It sounds like a dumb dad story, like “well golly we just thought we were takin’ some goofy snapshots and bobsyeruncle my kid is the most famous image in alternative rock’n’roll.”
Based on the fact the father sold out the baby for $200 without any sort of ongoing compensation/royalty agreement in place, this story lines up.
It’s not like anybody knew this nobody indie band from bumble fuck Washington was going to be the Angry Beatles of the 90’s
Angry Beatles were Oasis and Radiohead (early period; late period). Nirvana was Less Problematic GNR.
I can’t blame the father *too* much. Considering their prior album ‘Bleach’ didn’t exactly set the world on fire until after ‘Nevermind’ came out, it doesn’t seem too odd that he just thought “This rando garage band wants a photo of my baby? And I get $200? Screw it, it’s not like anyone’ll ever see it, probably.”
I mean, we know what a missed opportunity it was in retrospect, but at the time $200 probably seemed like a good deal.
Sounds like the photographer didn’t really tell him what it was for, they were probably thinking a local catalog or something.
Indeed. A tackle catalogue.
Yup, I get all the naked baby local catalogs. I’ve got piles of them.
a local catalog of nude pool babies?
Maybe he was confused and thought it was for a Mudhoney record
I’d think he would want to sue his parents as well for allowing the “pornographic” images to be taken. I mean while he’s attributing blame.
Sure, but his parents are probably broke, too.
he lives with his mom, so that would probably be a little awkward
Angelica Pickles did it once in a dream. It did make things difficult for poor Drew
Heh heh. Heh heh. I’ve seen that guy’s penis. Heh heh.
I would bet money that this guy is in qanon.
Also, his lawsuit has zero chance in court. It is not child porn. The pic was not stolen. His only chance is to get a settlement, and even that is very unlikely.
I mean, guy’s probably entitled to a bit more scratch out of this than he’s made so far, but making a child pornography claim really seems like over-egging the pudding here.
What an asshole. Seriously, I hope he gets laughed out of court.
Led Zeppelin and Judas Priest are calling their lawyers as we speak.
I mean… what is and isn’t art?!
Um…no.There’s a long artistic history of non-sexual nudity – both minors and adults. The cover of Nevermind is clearly not designed to titillate but to make an artistic statement.
LOL
What absurd, only in today’s farcical “America,” shit.I assume he’s a Xian and a Republican, but he might well be one of the “new” atheist types.What a fucked world we’ve made, where such people live.
You assume he’s a Xian? As in the Taoist concept of a transcendent or spiritually immortal human? And that he’s also a member of the GOP? That’s a bit weird.
He’s a 30 year-old Millennial, you stupid little bitch.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-37478523 “I said to the photographer, ‘Let’s do it naked.’ But he thought that would be weird, so I wore my swim shorts,” Spencer told the New York Post.“It’s cool but weird to be part of something so important that I don’t even remember.“It’s strange that I did this for five minutes when I was four months old and it became this really iconic image.” It’s not the first time Spencer has been asked to recreate the image – he has posed three times before for the album’s 10th, 17th and 20th anniversaries.
He’s also recreating it now.
That is not child pornography, he’s going to get laughed out of court.
On the one hand: pay the guy something. That’s him there used to make millions who has had 30 years of his baby self reflected at him because his parents weren’t psychic about the use and proliferation of their son to where in 30 years odds were high he’s had suuuuuper uncomfortable moments involving a sex partner rocking a shirt with baby him on it. On the other: … what?
On the other hand, I hope he gets cancer of the AIDs for diminishing the suffering of those who have ACTUALLY been victims of child porn.I hope he gets raped to death.
Although it’s not like the cover art is why the image is famous though, it the music. If this was say Chumbawomba’s 2010 album’s cover art then it wouldn’t have made any money. The reason the image sells is because it’s from a very famous band at the height of their popularity and the album has a ton of hit songs.
Funny you mention the Chumbies, because this is the same baby!
Though he may have got a number of sex partners on the basis of explaining how he was the baby on the shirt they were rocking too…
Considering the amount of money made from this album and the did use a real baby it would have been considerate to set up a college fund and a trust or something. There’s probably no legal necessity to give him anything, but considering how wealthy the estate and it’s former members are.
It’d be more considerate for the government to make college free.
Surely the baby on the album cover hasn’t “made millions”. It exists adjacent to making millions, in a capacity that had almost no specific value.
His parents got paid so he could be on one of the most iconic albums of that decade. He should be shut the fuck up and be honoured
I’d split the issue. As far as the album cover? He gets nothing from those profits. His image is not why it sold millions of copies.Merch? People were paying to own and display his image – not the music that the image was associated with. I can’t comment on the contract, but I don’t think it would be the wrong thing for him to get a piece of the merchandise sales.
How strange that he waits until the 30th anniversary
When you strip away the inflammatory child pornography language, this is actually a fascinating case about implicit versus explicit releases for use-of-likeness, copyrights, work-for-hire, and child labor laws.
If the various artists involved in this case didn’t cross their t’s and dot their lowercase j’s back in the day, maybe they deserve to get a little bit soaked here.I certainly hope the child pornography portion of the complaint gets laughed out of court, but that doesn’t mean the entire lawsuit is bogus.
maybe not “fascinating”
Give him his money. Shit was fucked up then (otherwise why did they do it), and it would be fucked up now (or would it? Are dicks OK or not?). In any case this was pretty nonconsensual shit, and you wouldn’t blame a sexual assault victim who decided to turn… or would we? What’s right these days?Just give the guy his money. He earned it.
he claims that his parents were never properly compensated for the shoot, saying they received $200 for the now-iconic photograph. In addition, the suit alleges that they never even signed a release for the photo—let alone royalties on all the different pieces of merchandise Sounds like he should be suing his parents for their bad management skills.
That sounds like a pretty standard contract as these things go. “Royalties” are not common, especially for random subjects of photographs. Unless you’ve specifically had them outlined in a contract you’re not entitled to them and more than likely if his parents had demanded royalties the photographer probably would have just found a different baby.
And this is America! We don’t believe in royalty. Down with King George!
Unless you’ve specifically had them outlined in a contract you’re not entitled to themThat’s … 100% not true. Legally, you can’t just slap someone’s image on a product and call it a day (Folgers did this, it went badly). This isn’t a case of fair-usage, and the law is very clear on this subject. The question is whether his parents acceptance of $200 constitutes a legally binding contract, which it absolutely might. Someone who understands thirty year old contract law can weigh in on that.
If the parents signed a photo release for the 200 bucks, then that would be end of the story.
That’s what sucks, like yeah they probably got a crappy deal for what ended up an iconic album, but they didn’t have to sign the contract. There was nothing they went back on as far as I know so they really owe him nothing
This idiot’s parents didn’t get royalties because why would they. He didn’t contribute to the success of the album. He’s a cover model, that’s it. When [actor] is on the cover of [magazine], they don’t get a piece of the action. And besides, nobody expected the album to do what it did. Why would he or his parents get a cut of that?
The pornography thing seems like a stretch, but if no release was ever signed and they used that image on other merch then it seems like he has more of a case than Scarlett Johansson does. There is probably a ton of money there.As for Chad Channing, I think some of the drum tracks are his from the first time they tried to record the album at Smart Studios.
as noted by Variety, he’s recreated several times, posing in the water for 10th, 17th, 20th, and 25th anniversaries.Not to mention every pool party he has ever been to.“LOOK. LOOK GUYS! NIRVANA BABY!!! [SPLASH]“DUDE! ENOUGH ALREADY! PUT YOUR SUIT BACK ON!”
Would you look at that, the Nivrvana baby turned into a capitalistic manbaby.
baby’s angst hasn’t paid off well, now he’s broke ‘n old…
Serious question: Did this guy become one of those QAnon/Pizzagate buffoons who see pedophilia everywhere they look?
Where the heck are you if you “see pedophilia everywhere (you) look”?!
I can only assume Phan Thi Kim Phuc will file suit next.
How ridiculous. Hope it gets thrown out of court
The suit should be thrown out at the mention of him recreating the cover on his own not once but like 4 times!
Streisand Effect.
Cobain was right when he said that if anyone thought that pic was porn, then they were a closet pedophile.This lawyer should be brought up on charges for this nonsense (just like guliani et al). He’s using the guy.
Goku is definitely suing the makers of DragonBall
Where this argument loses me is that he seems to think the photo is child porn and should be treated as a sex crime… but also that his parents were never properly compensated for the photo. I am not a lawyer, but I am pretty sure you cannot have it both ways. I could maybe see if he was suing for damages of being the victim of a sex crime as (allegedly) perpetuated by the band and others, but that is different from “not getting a sufficient cut”. As others have pointed out, this does sadly look like a cash grab.
1. Find out how much he wants to STFU
2. Put the cheque on a fishing hook and make the twat swim after it
There is an alternative universe in which, instead of this bizarre lawsuit, Dave Grohl heard about the guy’s misgivings, sincerely feels bad, invites him over to his house to make amends, and then gives him $200,000, half in cash, half in a trust. Everybody’s happy. We are in the worst timeline.
That would be a dumber timeline, though
Grohl is about the only person I can think of who would even consider such a thing.
Prediction: he settles for $10K and one of Kurt’s old shirts.
So, I guess he’s not doing well, financially, then?
The girl from Scorpions’ Virgin Killer album cover has a way better argument.
No brainer considering the Doolittle monkey’s compensatory windfall.
Someone just wants to get paid. This guy needs to be laughed out of court.
I’m thinking the girl from the Blind Faith album cover has a better claim.
she never got a horse.
What about Blind Melon?
Brooke Shields had a far better case and she couldn’t get anywhere with it, this guy is getting, like, negative progress with his.
Brooke absolutely has a better case. The 70’s was such a creepy decade
once simmering gen x rage dies down can we all look at this situation as the pathetic attention seeking behavior it is and then stop giving it attention?
So if you squint a little this has a lot in common with countless other successfully won entertainment lawsuits, and even the writers strike. Work that was commissioned for one product cant just be disseminated across other platforms/media without paying the people involved. It’s par for the course that these things get periodically renegotiated as unforeseen technology and new media emerge.
I would bet money that his parents signed some kind of contract acknowledging the photo would be used in merchandising. Because – if I remember right – the whole reason the photo came about was because they wanted to use a stock photograph but the company that owned the photo wanted $7,500 annually for its use. So they just said, “Screw it, we’ll take our own pictures of a swimming baby.”
I just don’t think David Geffen’s team didn’t have the foresight to dot all their Is and cross all their Ts when it came to something like that.
Funny enough, the record label wanted to airbrush out the baby’s penis but Nirvana countered with offering to place a sticker over the penis that reads “If you’re offended by this then you’re a closet pedophile;” And the record label threw in the towel.
To steal a friend’s very good joke: jeez, talk about a textbook naked money grab.
What a pathetic sack of shit. Does the album cover make him feel “unsafe”?
When teenage angst hasn’t paid off as well as you’d hoped…
The suit says that the inclusion of the dollar makes the infant look like a “sex worker grabbing for a dollar bill”…I don’t really care whether or not this dude gets paid, but I kind of admire the audacity of this incredibly bad faith interpretation. You could make a far more compelling case against the (legitimately pretty creepy) Coppertone baby ad.
Will he settle for all apologies?
does life long damages = “i am not rich”??? asking for a friend.
I mean if he ever worked for a living then yes, but not for this.
The infant shown reaching for a buck on the iconic album cover grows up and literally reaches for a buck via a frivolous lawsuit.Poetic.
I love that the logic of the suit is, “This is child pornography, and I didn’t even get paid enough for it!”
shouldn’t his problem be with his parents for allowing it?
I do think it’s weird that kids can just have their likeness and naked bottoms be all over tv. No, it’s not in a sexual way, but it’s still something they have zero autonomy over, and I don’t think that’s entirely right. But I also don’t think this counts as child porn, and the kid should sue his parents rather than Nirvana, if it’s not about the money that is.
if it’s not about the money that is
Where’s the guy who was the baby in the beginning of ‘The World According To Garp’? He should try to get in on this cash grab attempt.
Poor Chad Channing. First he isn’t inducted into the RRHOF, and now this.
Well, Onlyfans reversed its course making things better for SW’s, but it looks like Mommy Bloggers are going to be the ones who are about to have a really bad time.
All is as it should be
Will Dave Grohl have to register as a sex offender?
So this guy literally grew up to be the baby on the album cover. Priceless. Well, $200, but mostly priceless.
It seems to me he’s just fulfilling the prophecy.
Yeah, no.
What this guy is actually upset about is that his parents didn’t ask for royalties on album or merchandise sales.Also, the dollar bill does not imply sex work, it implies capitalism.
Nirvana would have sold the same number of copies of Nevermind (maybe more) with any dumb thing cover.His “complicated relationship” with the album cover is that he hasn’t earned any money from it, not that he dislikes the picture, or dislikes the fact he’s on there. That much is evident from his continued parodying of the image, and tattooing “Nevermind” on his chest.
Spencer … Tunick?
Little disappointed that the article leaves out that by his own admission, he didn’t start thinking about how he wanted more compensation until he asked Nirvana to participate in an art show of his and they snubbed him.
Solid choice on the chest tattoo, brah.
He could also demand $10 from every human being who has seen the “obscene” album cover. Yep.This is ridiculous and moronic. No one knows who that baby is. No one knows what that baby looks like today. And no one cares. His lawyer will earn money, for sure.
It’s a Moneygrab.Anyone that thinks that picture is porn, has bigger problems.
Probably keeps getting asked if his dick is still the same size.
Now that I read the following quote on a different site this makes a lot more sense:In a 2016 interview with GQ Australia, Elden said his stance on the photograph changed after he reached out to Nirvana to see if the band would participate in an art show he was putting on. “I was asking if they wanted to put a piece of art in the fucking thing,” he said. “I was getting referred to their managers and their lawyers. Why am I still on their cover if I’m not that big of a deal?”
To answer his fool question, because you’re not a big deal and have zero reasons to expect anyone to treat you like one. This guy is deeply entitled.
How could he claim lifelong ”damages” if, were it not for him, no one would even know he was the baby in question?