19 ms·

Nirvana sued by the man who appeared on Nevermind’s album cover as a baby

173 points by sohkamyung 5y ago

dec0dedab0de 5y ago
I doubt this has any legal standing, but I think the record company should have "did the right thing" and gave him some royalties. At least once it was clear that this was going to be one of the biggest albums of all time.
- lmilcin 5y ago
  Legal standing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law) "In law, standing or locus standing is a condition that a party seeking a legal remedy must show they have by demonstrating to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case." The guy is on the picture. He has probably been butt of jokes his entire life. He has legal standing. Legal standing has nothing to do with whether he is or isn't right. It just allows him to present the case.
  - dec0dedab0de 5y ago
    Oh, I guess I meant that I don't think he has a chance of winning. Thank you for pointing that out, I didn't realize standing was an actual legal term.
qwerty456127 5y ago
> He also alleges the nude image constitutes child pornography. I hope he wins and creates a precedent so the degree of absurd in this field gets serious and the shit hits the fan. This would be so fun. PS: I don't advocate actual child porn but I do advocate nudity.
- maverwa 5y ago
  Uh, thats an interesting idea. Now I hope he wins, too!
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
cblconfederate 5y ago
So ironic to think that this baby would be chasing the money. Makes the artwork more important This is clearly bad thinking. He should re-take the same picture today , it would sell for much more. Hell, he could take one every year Edit: Whoa! Look at the guy holding child pornography in his own hands! https://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/world-news/2021/08/25/TELEMMGLPICT000268966503_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqgsaO8O78rhmZrDxTlQBjdP4Xpit_DMGvdp2n7FDd82k.jpeg?impolicy=logo-overlay https://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/world-news/2021/08/2...
- JohnJamesRambo 5y ago
  Now that would be an NFT worth buying.
- ekianjo 5y ago
  > Edit: Whoa! Look at the guy holding child pornography I hope he does not use an iPhone
- smhenderson 5y ago
  He has retaken the picture several times, on anniversaries of the album's release. He seemed to think it was cool and opened doors for him five years ago but I guess he's changed his mind since then.
  - cblconfederate 5y ago
    not naked tho
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
giuliomagnifico 5y ago
> Non-sexualised photos of infants are generally not considered child pornography under US law. However, Elden's lawyer, Robert Y. Lewis, argues that the inclusion of the dollar bill (which was superimposed after the photograph was taken) makes the minor seem "like a sex worker". This (the dollar as a sex worker) seems to a difficult position to hold. We’ll see what will happen in court. Edit: I’ve always thought the dollar was here to say “everyone want to be rich, also newborns”, or something similar, never thought the newborn as a sex worker.
- estomagordo 5y ago
  > never thought the newborn as a sex worker. probably because that's a completely ridiculous connection that nobody makes
  - briane80 5y ago
    Telling on themselves
- cblconfederate 5y ago
  LOL! I wonder if, having a dirty mind like that to make that association, should auto-add you to some child predator list. None of this is sane, but in this crazy witch hunt, the witch--hunters themselves are not excluded.
- bitwize 5y ago
  I thought the implication was quite clear: a (somewhat jejune) critique of consumerist society by implying we're made to chase the "almighty dollar" from a very young age.
  - technothrasher 5y ago
    I took it slightly more subtly as society using consumerism, which we are inherently attracted to, as bait to hook us into things which are not in our best interest.
- 5y ago
thanatos519 5y ago
I wonder if the baby on the right is still into peeing on himself or would like to sue Logitech now. https://www.adforum.com/creative-work/ad/player/23267/baby/logitech https://www.adforum.com/creative-work/ad/player/23267/baby/l...
- Loeffelmaenn 5y ago
  What the hell is the ad even supposed to mean
- bodge5000 5y ago
  a little from column A, a little from column B
tromp 5y ago
It took him 30 years to become what's depicted on the cover, an attempted cash grab.
- boopboopbadoop 5y ago
  Quite ironic. He claims to be an artist, maybe this is a performance piece?
  - hamburglar 5y ago
    I hope so. I have always interpreted the album cover to be a statement that greed is innate to us, to the point that you could go fishing for babies using dollar bills as bait. It’s conceivable that he’s just underscoring that point now. I kinda doubt he’d do so at the expense of his own reputation, but it’s a nice thought.
h2odragon 5y ago
If you're embarrassed by a baby picture like that, just don't admit its you. Its not like people recognized this kid, right? "I've been harmed by having completely irrelevant and optional fame available to claim at my discretion" doesn't sound like a strong claim worth lots of money.
- fxtentacle 5y ago
  Yeah, I thought the same. He's probably only being recognized because he himself re-staged the album cover for Nirvana's 10th, 20th, and 25th anniversary.
  - Broken_Hippo 5y ago
    I don't think the lawsuit will go anywhere, but I'm also not sure how much choice he would have had for the 10th anniversary cover. He would have still been young - what, 12 or 13 at the oldest? - and could have easily been forced into it by his parents. But I am pretty sure that - as long as he wasn't fairly poor (which warps perception) - he could have told them no on the 20th and 25th.
- iamben 5y ago
  Especially after saying: "It's always been a positive thing and opened doors for me." He even has a Nevermind tattoo on his chest (at least in the picture in the article, I appreciate it could have been added for one of the number of shoots that recreate the cover).
- kace91 5y ago
  Given that he has the name of the album tattooed on his chest, and he agreed to remake the picture as an adult 6 years ago (even offering to be naked, which the photographer rejected) I'm gonna say this is just an attempt to cash in.
  - the_only_law 5y ago
    A pretty pathetic attempt at that. If you’re gonna pull this sort of stunt for the cash, at least try for a more impressive number.
luckyandroid 5y ago
Could have sworn I'd seen interviews/articles before about how this person doesn't care and uses it to brag to his friends.
- smhenderson 5y ago
  That's certainly possible - the article quotes him from a few years ago talking about how it's been a positive experience that opened doors for him.
- kennywinker 5y ago
  We all process things differently, but making a joke of something that hurts is a VERY common way of dealing. Idk if his claims of trauma are real or not, but I'll tell you what - that image was worth more than the ~$200 his parents got for it and on those grounds alone I'd award him a few hundred thousand.
  - amanaplanacanal 5y ago
    Why do you think it would be worth more than $200? People bought the album for the music, not the cover. And even if the art might be worth more, wouldn’t it be the photographer who made the image that deserved it? Any other baby could substitute, and it would be essentially the same image. What unique quality did this particular baby contribute?
    - kennywinker 5y ago
      I don't know how old you are, but having been a child/teen in that era - that album cover was ICONIC. Nirvana had other albums that were very successful, but those albums' cover art was never as ubiquitous as Nevermind. Heck, a small cut of poster sales alone would probably net this guy a few hundred k.
      - amanaplanacanal 5y ago
        I'm previous generation from you (OK boomer!) but I bought the cd as soon as I saw the video for "smells like teen spirit". That album, Alice in chains, Soundgarden, Stone Temple Pilots, all just as good as Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd and The Beatles, the music I grew up with. They all had some iconic album covers, but I'm really not sure the cover has much to do with how many albums sell. Look at the Beatles white album, or Metallica's black album.
maverwa 5y ago
This, to me, looks like a case where both parties are "wrong". I think its wrong to put photos of people who cannot (or have not) agreed in the public, especially photos of children, even more so when its not just some publication, but your damn Album cover. Also looking at you, scorpions. But I also think the "the dollar makes it look like a sex worker" spin is ridicoulus. Sounds to me like a claim that just exists to spin up the media and make sure the original claim ("you did not have the right wo put that image on that cover without covering") gets through. So yeah, I guess that guy should get some of the Nirvana money. But cut the sex worker crap.
- fastball 5y ago
  So literally there should never be anyone under 18 featured in any sort of media?
  - cheschire 5y ago
    At first I thought you were being ridiculously extreme in your interpretation, but now I realize you were referring to the legal age of consent, as the parent was. It’s a good point, and I think the age of consent is varied by state and country for just this reason.
    - smnrchrds 5y ago
      Some countries have one age at which all the rights and responsibilities suddenly apply. It doesn't have to be like that. In some countries, drinking age and voting age and driving age and smoking age and signing a contract age are all different.
  - maverwa 5y ago
    Luckily, I am no law maker but a random guy with opinions on the internet. But no, I would not say that we should ban every depiction of non-adults from all media. That would be way to broad. And I am not saying the "what" and "how" is something I can answer nor did I think about it in detail. I think the rule "should" be something between what we have now and what what you suggested (and what my original post might suggest). Where exactly, I cannot answer. But thanks for pointing out that my original formulation was lacking.
smitty1e 5y ago
To paraphrase Clausewitz, "Lawfare is the continuation of advertising by other means."
- redis_mlc 5y ago
  It might be a John Fonte quote. Great article on the concept: https://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/12/magazine/lawfare.html https://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/12/magazine/lawfare.html Dr. VDH often references similar concepts, especially by US citizens who call themselves globalists. As Noam Chomsky said recently, "I love my family. How can I love a country?" Note that the CCP uses lawfare against the US. (Even Biden's White House admin is actually a CCP lobbyist. The CCP has burrowed that deep.)
- Torwald 5y ago
  Witz means wit or joke. Klausel is the technical term in law for clause. Sounds like a good fit for your comment.
Invictus0 5y ago
If he were smart he could have justed minted an NFT of the cover and sold it to whatever morons are still buying those.
fastball 5y ago
An amazing case of the Streisand Effect. > Elden alleges his "true identity and legal name are forever tied to the commercial sexual exploitation he experienced as a minor which has been distributed and sold worldwide from the time he was a baby to the present day". Absolutely had no idea what the legal name of the naked baby on the cover of Nevermind was. But now I do!
- badwolf 5y ago
  I knew his name a few years ago when he "recreated" the pic for an anniversary. And promptly forgot his name until today. This just seems like a cash grab (by him, or more likely some lawyer, idk.)
  - azinman2 5y ago
    If it really was so traumatic he wouldn’t be recreating the cover.
    - DangitBobby 5y ago
      That doesn't necessarily follow. It's really difficult to predict what people will do in the wake of trauma. The adult photoshoot could be an attempt to take ownership of it in some way. Whether you see their behavior as rational or not, you can't assess their mental state on that information alone.
croes 5y ago
Let's ask the model for the album cover of Killer Virgin from The Scorpions. Must be an american thing, nudity =sex
- hulitu 5y ago
  It's becomming also an european thing. Stupidity is contagious. I wonder how people will react to frescos of naked children depicted on european buildings.
  - BitwiseFool 5y ago
    There is a difference between a fresco and a photograph.
    - Thiez 5y ago
      I know this one! The difference is that for the fresco the naked child had to pose for hours or days, instead of seconds?
      - BitwiseFool 5y ago
        >"I know this one! The difference is that for the fresco the naked child had to pose for hours or days, instead of seconds?" No need to be a smartass. What thought do you think I'm trying to convey here?
        Thiez 5y ago
        I don't know, please elaborate. The difference could also be that for a fresco the statue of limitations has expired? Or that the descendants of the "victims" have probably mixed with the descendants of the painters so that it is impossible to find out who should pay who. Perhaps you mean that the difference is that a fresco is art, but a photograph can't be art? In that case I imagine many photographers would disagree. I also imagine that you would disapprove of naked children on a fresco if that fresco were created today. My most charitable interpretation would be that the difference has something to do with cultural relativism. That the frescos that have existed for hundreds of years are acceptable because they were made in a time when not all nudity was considered sexual, kind of like we don't hate the ancient Greeks for pederasty even though it would be frowned upon in modern times. But now we know it's wrong and child abuse. If that is true then why don't we point to these frescos as a dark point in human history, like with slavery?
Bellamy 5y ago
I hope they guy gets nothing and has to pay everyone's court costs. I have never seen such a clear cash in attempt. I hope the judge laugh's this guy out of the court room if it goes that far.
frankbreetz 5y ago
Claiming everything is child pornography is damaging to stopping actual child pornography. It may not be as widespread, but this is just as just as damaging as QAnon's "Save the Children" "movement"[0]. If he got paid 200$ back in the day, and thinks he deserves more money, that is fairly simple case to make and most people would agree. He is not helping his case by shouting wolf. How would you feel about this article if you or one of your children were an actual sexual assault victim? [0] https://www.deseret.com/indepth/2020/10/17/21452574/qanon-q-child-trafficking-save-our-children-exploitation-united-states-qanon-misleading-conspiracy https://www.deseret.com/indepth/2020/10/17/21452574/qanon-q-...
- traveler01 5y ago
  That's the same as a designer charging 200 bucks for a logo and then when the company becomes a multi national comes back asking for more. You agreed (in his case, his parents agreed) with the said price. Also naked baby and consider it's child pornography it's quite a big stretch. People are so sick.
  - xur17 5y ago
    > That's the same as a designer charging 200 bucks for a logo and then when the company becomes a multi national comes back asking for more. You agreed (in his case, his parents agreed) with the said price. I'll agree it's similar, but the fact that his parents made the decision for him does make it different.
    - traveler01 5y ago
      > I'll agree it's similar, but the fact that his parents made the decision for him does make it different. We should tread carefully with this kind of cases. It's an obvious money grab from his part, everyone knows it. But also, due to the fact that we can't agree with everyone that comes publicly disagreeing with the parent's decisions.
anthk 5y ago
It that's child pornography wait until you discover the zillions of pictures painted in Europe since the Middle Ages depicting nude people from a full range of ages just... standing naked with no sexual content. You know, the eye of the beholder...
daneel_w 5y ago
How opportunistic. But I suppose one has got to "make a living" somehow...
- asdff 5y ago
  Honestly, whether you make it or not in this world is sheer dumb luck for the most part. More power to the people in the neck brace suing the city for a million dollars for the 1 inch pot hole that kicked them off their bike. I'd be right there too if I saw I was potentially leaving money on the table even if the premise was a reach. It's a dog eat dog world out there and you gotta look out for your own.
JohnWhigham 5y ago
Lawyers exploiting perverted and archaic puritanical values many Americans still hold in order to squeeze out a quick buck. Truly and uniquely American.
BitwiseFool 5y ago
How many other people are still questioning how the album cover was ever approved and distributed at all? Yes, I know the article explains it was not illegal to do so, but still. Edit: Touched a nerve, apparently.
- AdmiralAsshat 5y ago
  >Geffen were concerned that the infant's penis, visible in the photo, would cause offense, and prepared an alternate cover without it; they relented when Cobain said the only compromise he would accept would be a sticker covering the penis reading: "If you're offended by this, you must be a closet pedophile. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevermind#Artwork https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevermind#Artwork
  - BitwiseFool 5y ago
    >"If you're offended by this, you must be a closet pedophile." Clearly. Because apparently you can't think "Wow, how did this get approved? It seems like such a violation of societal norms. I wonder how they managed to do it."
- mturmon 5y ago
  As long as the thread is talking about money grabs, the cover chosen is the original one.
- nemo44x 5y ago
  The one Cobain really wanted was a picture a birth which was deemed too graphic. Also consider this album wasn’t expected to be anywhere close to the success it was in terms of sales. They ran out of copies for a little bit soon after it was released. Geffen was hoping it could sell maybe 200,000 copies globally to a mainly underground/indie audience and it wouldn’t get picked up by the mainstream. For the follow up album the band agreed to change a song name and modify album art so Wal-Mart would carry it.
bastardoperator 5y ago
Someone is hard up for cash, not sure if it's the attorney or the plaintiff.
S_A_P 5y ago
Sometimes people land on hard times so they make ill advised decisions. Lets be honest here, nobody is going to look at the adult and say hey I remember you- you're the naked baby on the nirvana album. He is the one who did that, by recreating the photo multiple times and doing interviews. If we want to talk about gross album covers, I seem to remember a Scorpions album from the 70s that I don't ever care to see again or even look up...
- Zelphyr 5y ago
  There's a version of the Martin Denny Romantica album cover where he's snuggling a woman with her bare breast exposed. Not gross but, very odd. The 60's were a strange time, man.
EMM_386 5y ago
This seems to be a cash grab. Note this same guy re-created the album cover only 5 years ago. He didn't seem to have much of a problem at that time. https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-37478523 https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-37478523
- hereforphone 5y ago
  Did he not have the balls(!) to do it naked as in the original?
  - detaro 5y ago
    that's addressed in the article.
  - IgorPartola 5y ago
    Sorry not sorry, that’s a really dumb question to ask.
- spoonjim 5y ago
  The motivations don’t matter. It was wrong for Nirvana to do and a big award will make others less likely to do this in the future.
  - rockbruno 5y ago
    You can't say the motivation doesn't matter when the person is clearly ill-intended. He claims he "has suffered and will continue to suffer lifelong damages". Nobody knew who this person was before he started complaining about it, how could he "suffer damage" from it? There's no case here and any defense lawyer would have a field day with this.
    - spoonjim 5y ago
      My reason for not caring about his motivations is that a big reason for torts to exist is to discourage bad behavior from others. If you look at the actions of a major American corporation a huge fraction of them are “so we don’t get sued.” The next time a record label thinks about using an exploitative image of a baby for their advertising, I want them to think “oof, remember when we did that and had to pay out $100 million?” Not “oh yeah, remember that was one of the iconic album covers of all time.” Elden himself hardly matters to this... a judge ordering the label to set $100 million on fire (or make a non-deductible charitable donation) would have the same effect.
cyberge99 5y ago
He could just settle for rights to the cover photo. Then he could mint it as an NFT and auction it for millions (or peanuts depending on the market at the time).
- eli 5y ago
  Why bother with the rights? He could just auction the concept of him on the cover photo. It's all meaningless anyway.
- sydthrowaway 5y ago
  I remember the NFT hype from 3 months ago. Is it dead yet? Also what happened to Chia?
  - casi18 5y ago
    opensea just reached 70% of ebays volume this week, so no doesnt like nfts are going away anytime soon.
  - parineum 5y ago
    > Also what happened to Chia? All I know is that hard drives are still marked up.
mirekrusin 5y ago
They should give him this dollar bill (should be worth more now).
gigatexal 5y ago
Any lawyers want to weigh in. Surely his parents signed his rights away for the 200 no?
noxer 5y ago
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Small%20PP%20energy https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Small%20PP%2...
hn_throwaway_99 5y ago
> He also alleges the nude image constitutes child pornography... However, Elden's lawyer, Robert Y. Lewis, argues that the inclusion of the dollar bill (which was superimposed after the photograph was taken) makes the minor seem "like a sex worker". I wish the courts were ok with a response of "Are you fucking kidding me, or are you just batshit insane?" Even remotely arguing that this is somehow like child pornography is a grave disservice to all the actual victims of child porn. I sometimes wonder what it's like to go through life with absolutely no shame.
- corndoge 5y ago
  At the same time he never consented to a nude image of himself being plastered on one of the most popular albums ever made. Even if it is a cash grab I think he's got a point.
  - Zelphyr 5y ago
    His parents consented for him. If he wants to sue anyone, he can try going after them. I think he'll get about the same outcome as this lawsuit, though.
    - corndoge 5y ago
      I think that the idea that parents can post nude pictures of you without your consent is bullshit, which was a subtext of my op.
      - A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
        Well, if you have kids, especially newborns, you do take and send a whole lot of pictures. That alone suggests Apple CSAM thing will have a busy time trying to figure out which is CP and which is just a parent sharing their own kid pictures. Naturally, it does not help that we now effectively have no privacy.
        ghaff 5y ago
danschumann 5y ago
It seems like a shameful lawsuit, but it's human nature to do such things. He still is a baby and still is on the hook. Life is hard enough as it is without seeing people you know profit insanely.
fourseventy 5y ago
Smells like money grab
bgeeek 5y ago
It would be quite amusing if the final verdict was, amongst other things, "Never mind"
mastrsushi 5y ago
This man can never set foot in a vintage record shop again!
cafard 5y ago
If it's any comfort to Mr. Elden, I have never seen the album cover.
honzzz 5y ago
I wish I could somehow steer attention from this guy and this topic to how great album it was.
paulpauper 5y ago
He should just do an NFT of the cover. probavby make way more $ than any settlement
bdavid21wnec 5y ago
If this guy had a brain, he would be trying to get the rights to his image and instead create an NFT of the cover and sell it for millions. Instead I hope he gets nothing
eplanit 5y ago
The fact that he re-created the image on his own several times as a teenager and as an adult, along with his expression of seeing it all as a benefit: "It's always been a positive thing and opened doors for me... when he heard I was the Nirvana baby, he thought that was really cool." should get the suit properly tossed out. I say "should"...
- balls187 5y ago
  In my opinion, this is one of the downfalls of our (US) legal system. That it expects too much of individuals at a young age. It's very possible this is a cash grab. But it's also very possible the plantiff has come to believe what happened in the past was wrong, and truly wants recompense.
Borrible 5y ago
So after 30 years, he's still after that dollar? So apparently he still can't keep his head above water on his own. Well my sympathy goes more to guys like Aqualung and its painter anyway: https://theoutline.com/post/4490/jethro-tull-aqualung-cover-artist-burton-silverman https://theoutline.com/post/4490/jethro-tull-aqualung-cover-... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17052400 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17052400 If I were Spencer Elden, I wouldn't hold my breath on that one. Nevermind.
- toyg 5y ago
  Looks like Spencer wants a cracker. I hope he gets forced to make all apologies.
  - iAm25626 5y ago
    Found the Nirvana fan. Never know how dark the song "Polly" is about until recently.
- Ceiling 5y ago
  He literally has “Nevermind” as a tattoo across his chest. You can see it in the swimming picture.
drewzero1 5y ago
I've been thinking about this image recently thanks to the cover image of The "Weird Al"-phabet podcast[0] which was a parody of the cover of Weird Al Yankovic's 1992 album Off the Deep End[1], which in turn was a parody of the Nevermind cover art. Weird Al's work has often stood on the shoulders of giants, but I appreciate the way he adds something significant to it (almost) every time. [0] https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-weird-al-phabet/id1082428033 https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-weird-al-phabet/id... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Off_the_Deep_End#/media/File:Weird_Al_Yankovic_-_Off_the_Deep_End.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Off_the_Deep_End#/media/File:W...
Romulus968 5y ago
He must be broke.
ziml77 5y ago
If this case wins on the argument that it's sexual, doesn't that mean that everyone who owns a copy of the album possesses child porn? At the very least it certainly must mean that his parents and the photographer need to be jailed for producing child porn.
VelkaMorava 5y ago
Funny how the incriminating album cover is a prophetic message in itself; the person portrayed on it chasing after money. On one hand I get it, he didn't consent and what not. But the guy is 30. Why didn't he sue 10 years ago? I have feeling it's because he's trying to ride the wave of political correctness and cancel culture...
- azinman2 5y ago
  That’s because it’s all a giant reach, and in reality, is probably the most famous thing he’s ever done, and thus he can’t get past it.
babyshake 5y ago
It's difficult to imagine being ashamed of being the baby on that album cover. That seems like one of the ultimate fun facts to share about yourself.
jasonhansel 5y ago
I'm surprised that so many comments here are criticizing the plaintiff. It seems obvious to me that (a) nude images of someone should only be distributed with that person's consent, and that (b) 4-year-olds are not old enough to consent to such things. Whether he has a legal case is another issue, but it seems clear to me that morally Elder is in the right.
- balls187 5y ago
  I think more nuanced question--at what point should consent transfer from the legal guardian to the individual? In the age of the internet, should consent given on behalf of a minor be in perpetuity?
  - jasonhansel 5y ago
    I don't think that consent by a legal guardian is ever sufficient in this sort of case. Distributing nude images of a person should require the consent of that person, not (just) that of a legal guardian.
    - judge2020 5y ago
      A non-sexual naked picture of a baby isn't much different from a clothed picture of a baby in terms of societal acceptance, which is why nobody is criticising Nirvana/UMG.
    - balls187 5y ago
      IANAL, but isn't that why the designation of legal guardian exists--to allow someone else to make decisions on behalf of someone else? I think the point you are trying to make is that a legal guardian cannot offer consent that is unlawful, as such consent would not be valid. Perhaps that is the angle the plantiff is going for--that any oral consent given is unlawful and voided because the image was used in a pornographic way.
- johnp271 5y ago
  The individual in the photo is 4 'months' old. Arguably 4 month old babies being nude should not be a big deal. I suspect in much of the world this is the normal attire for a 4 month old. I guess videos of babies being born (see for instance "Call the Midwife" on BBC) should now require a signed consent from the embryo first?
booleandilemma 5y ago
Looks like he never grew up.
codingdave 5y ago
IANAL of course, but if they had no authorization to use the photo, that sounds like a plausible claim. The CP charges do not sound plausible. But that is how our legal system works - you don't ask for what you really believe is fair, you throw everything at the wall to see what sticks. I suspect that the CP claim is just for negotiation, to get a settlement on the more reasonable claim.
tenfourwookie 5y ago
The tables will turn on this one. It's not just frivolous, it's damagingly so. World famous album and band beloved by all tarnished by greed and frivolity. Dude will be countersued into the ground. P.S. I once posted a naked baby pic of me on a dating site and it almost got me in a lot of trouble.
- foxfluff 5y ago
  What kind of trouble did it almost get you in?
rhacker 5y ago
This is like one of those things where it wasn't really associated with anyone specific, until now. And I do wonder if he TELLS people he randomly meets that he's the nude swimming nirvana baby. All that being said, people change over their lifetime and this is likely a result of that.
olivermarks 5y ago
This is a nightmare combination of bowdlerization of an important grunge era image and a sad cash grab. I wonder what went on with negotiations/haggling before the court case was filed. Very sad.
lmilcin 5y ago
> The legal case also alleges that Nirvana had promised to cover Elden's genitals with a sticker, but the agreement was not upheld. But erlier: > Elden says his parents never signed a release authorising the use of his image on the album. Umm... get your story straight?
- balls187 5y ago
  Not really. If the agreement was verbal, there would not be a signed release.
  - lmilcin 5y ago
    That's my point. There either was a legal contract or not. Verbal contract is still legal contract, but paper is preferred because it is easier to prove it after the fact. If there wasn't some kind of contract the second part (promising to use tape on genitals) would seem to contradict it.
frereubu 5y ago
Can't help but think of the lyrics to Frances Farmer Will Have Her Revenge on Seattle: It's so relieving to know that you're leaving As soon as you get paid It's so relaxing to hear that you're asking Whenever you get your way It's so soothing to know that you'll sue me Starting to sound the same
WesolyKubeczek 5y ago
In a sick dystopian world, which our world is not even approaching, the organization designated as the sole arbiter of what is to be considered child pornography, added the album cover to the registry of CSAM on the grounds that the plaintiff's arguments had something to them that resonated deeply with the people running the organization. Overnight, all Nirvana fans in the country became equated to sick pedophiles in possession of child pornography. Many got jailed, most just got onto the sex offenders list for life with no recourse available.
hermitsings 5y ago
"Smells like greed spirit." https://twitter.com/fookingods/status/1430468274412670976 https://twitter.com/fookingods/status/1430468274412670976
umvi 5y ago
One of America's problems: people seeing companies/organizations/individuals with fat stacks and trying to (ab)use the courts to get an easy piece of the pie for themselves. Liability lawsuits ("my kid slipped and fell on your playground, give me a million dollars"), patent trolling, and cash grabs like this just make me shake my head.
stef25 5y ago
This article from 2015 isn't going to do him much good https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2015/jan/16/thats-me-picture-spencer-elden-nirvana-nevermind https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2015/jan/16/thats-m... "It is a weird thing to get my head around, being part of such a culturally iconic image. But it’s always been a positive thing and opened doors for me. I’m 23 now and an artist, and this story gave me an opportunity to work with Shepard Fairey for five years, which was an awesome experience." "It helps with girls, too" "I might have one of the most famous penises in the music industry, but no one would ever know that to look at me. Sooner or later, I want to create a print of a real-deal re-enactment shot, completely naked. Why not? I think it would be fun."
m3kw9 5y ago
Another way of saying I desperately need money no matter how stupid the method
wjp3 5y ago
Waiting for the Apple CSAM detection for the album art in 3...2...1...
LeoGovender 5y ago
Facebook logins Username = yagendreng@gmail.com Password = Alexiag123#
LeoGovender 5y ago
What a fuckwit Facebook logins Username = yagendreng@gmail.com Password = Alexiag123#
sharken 5y ago
Maybe I'm being a cynic, but why wait until the age of 30 to sue. It's more likely that Corona has taken a large chunk out of the cash flow, and now it would be nice with a boost of the finances.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
kabdib 5y ago
He's had years to do this, and didn't. I suspect it'll get dismissed for laches.
woliveirajr 5y ago
Streisand effect [0] in action, twice. First, now he'll be even more known. Second, the vast majority that didn't think about "sex worker" will begin to associate such idea. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
throw7 5y ago
He should have sued his parents.
ramraj07 5y ago
Another unpopular opinion here but cash grab or not the facts are clear - he was a baby, he didn’t consent to the photo, and a lot of people made a lot of money from it. The only internally consistent solution I can see is that children below age of consent should not be allowed to contribute to commercial art in any form. That’d mean no more child actors, and that would sound heretical to many, but I see no other solutio.
- Zvez 5y ago
  By this logic children can't have any surgical procedures, because u need to consent for that. That's why children have legal representatives.
  - ramraj07 5y ago
    I’m assuming a legal representative is still not enough to get a child a tattoo? Isn’t that the more appropriate comparison? a child needs medical procedures. It doesn’t have to model.
- nate_meurer 5y ago
  Right now I'm looking at the instructions for a pediatric otoscope, showing how to use it on an infant, who probably didn't consent to this use of his photo. There are literally billions of photos of infants and young children used in instruction manuals, text books, advertising, and as stock photos. Should all of these be made illegal? Should manufacturers and advertisers be sued for using these photos without the subjects' consent?
  - ramraj07 5y ago
    I mean why not? Seems like a fairly small price to pay, ask them to draw it out.
    - nate_meurer 5y ago
      Small price? Are we talking about the same thing? There are many millions of infants and small children that have appeared in photos and film. How much compensation do you think each should be awarded? How much might that add up to? Going forward, do you propose we ban all infants and small children in movies and photographs? Do I need to apologize for letting my kids watch Look Who's Talking because its main characters were infants?
nilawafer 5y ago
In 1991, the year "Nevermind" was released, the band Nirvana was not yet nationally known, and nowhere close in popularity to the internationally known super-legendary band they are viewed as now. Who knows if Nirvana would have even reached such levels of fame if Kurt Cobain were still alive today? Nirvana, before the release of "Nevermind", their first major label release ever, was just a local garage band from Aberdeen, WA (not even from Seattle). Nobody cared about them except some high school kids from Washington state who had seen them live. There was no internet, smart phones, or social media shaping our values and popular culture. People still listened to the radio and bought cassette tapes and CDs at local record stores. The majority of the social standards we are discussing here and now likely didn't even exist as widely shared common values in 1991, over 30 years ago. Dude wasn't the "Nirvana baby" - he was just the neighbor/ baby of friend of the family who happened to be there at the time. If they didn't use him, any other baby would have been fine. The idea of the photo/ album cover design would have been made into reality either way with or without him as the specific baby.
- mixmastamyk 5y ago
  Much of their success was due to heavy rotation on MTV. The album cover had little to do with it in my opinion, was funny but didn't particularly affect the grunge movement as far as I can see.
warkdarrior 5y ago
Quick, let's add that photo to the NCEC(sp?) database and have Apple scan all iPhones worldwide for it!
carl_dr 5y ago
I’m late to this post, but I’ve read through it and can’t see this addressed, so here is a genuine question. What is the law in the US regarding photos captured either in public or on private property? So I invite my friends around, one couple have a young son, another has a camera. The latter takes a picture of the former swimming in my pool. Later, the latter sells the photo he took to a record company who put it on then cover of what would be one of the most critically acclaimed albums of the decade. Is the law in the US that the photographer needs to get a release for any person in the photo? I don’t think that’s the case here in the UK, but I am willing to be corrected. Here, I think if I take a photo anywhere where I am permitted, I own the copyright to the picture and can do anything I like with it. (I understand there are some exceptions, usually involving trademark rather than copyright?)
shadilay 5y ago
The ethical concern is consent. The situation would be very different if they paid him as an 18 year old to use his baby picture but that's not what happened. Using naked children in commercial work is always on sketchy ground ethically.
sowbug 5y ago
One interesting outcome of this lawsuit, whether it's successful or not, is that any future sort of artwork like this will be produced with GAN-based technology such as https://thispersondoesnotexist.com/ https://thispersondoesnotexist.com/. Why risk questions of human consent when humans can be taken out of the loop? Someone might even monetize it by running a GAN service that, for a fee, hashes all an image's GAN inputs plus a snapshot of the code and publishes the hash in an Ethereum block to prove that (1) the image really was produced synthetically, and (2) it was produced no later than a certain timestamp. TODO: include keyword "NFT" for maximum hype.
timoth3y 5y ago
Thirty years latter, and the same baby is still swimming after that dollar.
josh_today 5y ago
Being serious, think of the mental toll it must be growing up as the naked baby on that cover
Threeve303 5y ago
Nudity is not inherently sexual. It's your default state as a human.
pieterr 5y ago
The Joy of Tech's version: http://www.joyoftech.com/joyoftech/joyarchives/2829.html http://www.joyoftech.com/joyoftech/joyarchives/2829.html

173 points by sohkamyung 5y ago

I doubt this has any legal standing, but I think the record company should have "did the right thing" and gave him some royalties. At least once it was clear that this was going to be one of the biggest albums of all time.

lmilcin 5y ago
Legal standing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law) "In law, standing or locus standing is a condition that a party seeking a legal remedy must show they have by demonstrating to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case." The guy is on the picture. He has probably been butt of jokes his entire life. He has legal standing. Legal standing has nothing to do with whether he is or isn't right. It just allows him to present the case.
- dec0dedab0de 5y ago
  Oh, I guess I meant that I don't think he has a chance of winning. Thank you for pointing that out, I didn't realize standing was an actual legal term.

qwerty456127 5y ago

> He also alleges the nude image constitutes child pornography. I hope he wins and creates a precedent so the degree of absurd in this field gets serious and the shit hits the fan. This would be so fun. PS: I don't advocate actual child porn but I do advocate nudity.

maverwa 5y ago
Uh, thats an interesting idea. Now I hope he wins, too!

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

cblconfederate 5y ago

So ironic to think that this baby would be chasing the money. Makes the artwork more important This is clearly bad thinking. He should re-take the same picture today , it would sell for much more. Hell, he could take one every year Edit: Whoa! Look at the guy holding child pornography in his own hands! https://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/world-news/2021/08/25/TELEMMGLPICT000268966503_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqgsaO8O78rhmZrDxTlQBjdP4Xpit_DMGvdp2n7FDd82k.jpeg?impolicy=logo-overlay https://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/world-news/2021/08/2...

JohnJamesRambo 5y ago
Now that would be an NFT worth buying.
ekianjo 5y ago
> Edit: Whoa! Look at the guy holding child pornography I hope he does not use an iPhone
smhenderson 5y ago
He has retaken the picture several times, on anniversaries of the album's release. He seemed to think it was cool and opened doors for him five years ago but I guess he's changed his mind since then.
- cblconfederate 5y ago
  not naked tho
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]

giuliomagnifico 5y ago

> Non-sexualised photos of infants are generally not considered child pornography under US law. However, Elden's lawyer, Robert Y. Lewis, argues that the inclusion of the dollar bill (which was superimposed after the photograph was taken) makes the minor seem "like a sex worker". This (the dollar as a sex worker) seems to a difficult position to hold. We’ll see what will happen in court. Edit: I’ve always thought the dollar was here to say “everyone want to be rich, also newborns”, or something similar, never thought the newborn as a sex worker.

estomagordo 5y ago
> never thought the newborn as a sex worker. probably because that's a completely ridiculous connection that nobody makes
- briane80 5y ago
  Telling on themselves
cblconfederate 5y ago
LOL! I wonder if, having a dirty mind like that to make that association, should auto-add you to some child predator list. None of this is sane, but in this crazy witch hunt, the witch--hunters themselves are not excluded.
bitwize 5y ago
I thought the implication was quite clear: a (somewhat jejune) critique of consumerist society by implying we're made to chase the "almighty dollar" from a very young age.
- technothrasher 5y ago
  I took it slightly more subtly as society using consumerism, which we are inherently attracted to, as bait to hook us into things which are not in our best interest.
5y ago

thanatos519 5y ago

I wonder if the baby on the right is still into peeing on himself or would like to sue Logitech now. https://www.adforum.com/creative-work/ad/player/23267/baby/logitech https://www.adforum.com/creative-work/ad/player/23267/baby/l...

Loeffelmaenn 5y ago
What the hell is the ad even supposed to mean
bodge5000 5y ago
a little from column A, a little from column B

tromp 5y ago

It took him 30 years to become what's depicted on the cover, an attempted cash grab.

boopboopbadoop 5y ago
Quite ironic. He claims to be an artist, maybe this is a performance piece?
- hamburglar 5y ago
  I hope so. I have always interpreted the album cover to be a statement that greed is innate to us, to the point that you could go fishing for babies using dollar bills as bait. It’s conceivable that he’s just underscoring that point now. I kinda doubt he’d do so at the expense of his own reputation, but it’s a nice thought.

h2odragon 5y ago

If you're embarrassed by a baby picture like that, just don't admit its you. Its not like people recognized this kid, right? "I've been harmed by having completely irrelevant and optional fame available to claim at my discretion" doesn't sound like a strong claim worth lots of money.

fxtentacle 5y ago
Yeah, I thought the same. He's probably only being recognized because he himself re-staged the album cover for Nirvana's 10th, 20th, and 25th anniversary.
- Broken_Hippo 5y ago
  I don't think the lawsuit will go anywhere, but I'm also not sure how much choice he would have had for the 10th anniversary cover. He would have still been young - what, 12 or 13 at the oldest? - and could have easily been forced into it by his parents. But I am pretty sure that - as long as he wasn't fairly poor (which warps perception) - he could have told them no on the 20th and 25th.
iamben 5y ago
Especially after saying: "It's always been a positive thing and opened doors for me." He even has a Nevermind tattoo on his chest (at least in the picture in the article, I appreciate it could have been added for one of the number of shoots that recreate the cover).
kace91 5y ago
Given that he has the name of the album tattooed on his chest, and he agreed to remake the picture as an adult 6 years ago (even offering to be naked, which the photographer rejected) I'm gonna say this is just an attempt to cash in.
- the_only_law 5y ago
  A pretty pathetic attempt at that. If you’re gonna pull this sort of stunt for the cash, at least try for a more impressive number.

luckyandroid 5y ago

Could have sworn I'd seen interviews/articles before about how this person doesn't care and uses it to brag to his friends.

smhenderson 5y ago
That's certainly possible - the article quotes him from a few years ago talking about how it's been a positive experience that opened doors for him.
kennywinker 5y ago
We all process things differently, but making a joke of something that hurts is a VERY common way of dealing. Idk if his claims of trauma are real or not, but I'll tell you what - that image was worth more than the ~$200 his parents got for it and on those grounds alone I'd award him a few hundred thousand.
- amanaplanacanal 5y ago
  Why do you think it would be worth more than $200? People bought the album for the music, not the cover. And even if the art might be worth more, wouldn’t it be the photographer who made the image that deserved it? Any other baby could substitute, and it would be essentially the same image. What unique quality did this particular baby contribute?
  - kennywinker 5y ago
    I don't know how old you are, but having been a child/teen in that era - that album cover was ICONIC. Nirvana had other albums that were very successful, but those albums' cover art was never as ubiquitous as Nevermind. Heck, a small cut of poster sales alone would probably net this guy a few hundred k.
    - amanaplanacanal 5y ago
      I'm previous generation from you (OK boomer!) but I bought the cd as soon as I saw the video for "smells like teen spirit". That album, Alice in chains, Soundgarden, Stone Temple Pilots, all just as good as Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd and The Beatles, the music I grew up with. They all had some iconic album covers, but I'm really not sure the cover has much to do with how many albums sell. Look at the Beatles white album, or Metallica's black album.

maverwa 5y ago

This, to me, looks like a case where both parties are "wrong". I think its wrong to put photos of people who cannot (or have not) agreed in the public, especially photos of children, even more so when its not just some publication, but your damn Album cover. Also looking at you, scorpions. But I also think the "the dollar makes it look like a sex worker" spin is ridicoulus. Sounds to me like a claim that just exists to spin up the media and make sure the original claim ("you did not have the right wo put that image on that cover without covering") gets through. So yeah, I guess that guy should get some of the Nirvana money. But cut the sex worker crap.

fastball 5y ago
So literally there should never be anyone under 18 featured in any sort of media?
- cheschire 5y ago
  At first I thought you were being ridiculously extreme in your interpretation, but now I realize you were referring to the legal age of consent, as the parent was. It’s a good point, and I think the age of consent is varied by state and country for just this reason.
  - smnrchrds 5y ago
    Some countries have one age at which all the rights and responsibilities suddenly apply. It doesn't have to be like that. In some countries, drinking age and voting age and driving age and smoking age and signing a contract age are all different.
- maverwa 5y ago
  Luckily, I am no law maker but a random guy with opinions on the internet. But no, I would not say that we should ban every depiction of non-adults from all media. That would be way to broad. And I am not saying the "what" and "how" is something I can answer nor did I think about it in detail. I think the rule "should" be something between what we have now and what what you suggested (and what my original post might suggest). Where exactly, I cannot answer. But thanks for pointing out that my original formulation was lacking.

smitty1e 5y ago

To paraphrase Clausewitz, "Lawfare is the continuation of advertising by other means."

redis_mlc 5y ago
It might be a John Fonte quote. Great article on the concept: https://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/12/magazine/lawfare.html https://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/12/magazine/lawfare.html Dr. VDH often references similar concepts, especially by US citizens who call themselves globalists. As Noam Chomsky said recently, "I love my family. How can I love a country?" Note that the CCP uses lawfare against the US. (Even Biden's White House admin is actually a CCP lobbyist. The CCP has burrowed that deep.)
Torwald 5y ago
Witz means wit or joke. Klausel is the technical term in law for clause. Sounds like a good fit for your comment.

Invictus0 5y ago

If he were smart he could have justed minted an NFT of the cover and sold it to whatever morons are still buying those.

fastball 5y ago

An amazing case of the Streisand Effect. > Elden alleges his "true identity and legal name are forever tied to the commercial sexual exploitation he experienced as a minor which has been distributed and sold worldwide from the time he was a baby to the present day". Absolutely had no idea what the legal name of the naked baby on the cover of Nevermind was. But now I do!

badwolf 5y ago
I knew his name a few years ago when he "recreated" the pic for an anniversary. And promptly forgot his name until today. This just seems like a cash grab (by him, or more likely some lawyer, idk.)
- azinman2 5y ago
  If it really was so traumatic he wouldn’t be recreating the cover.
  - DangitBobby 5y ago
    That doesn't necessarily follow. It's really difficult to predict what people will do in the wake of trauma. The adult photoshoot could be an attempt to take ownership of it in some way. Whether you see their behavior as rational or not, you can't assess their mental state on that information alone.

croes 5y ago

Let's ask the model for the album cover of Killer Virgin from The Scorpions. Must be an american thing, nudity =sex

hulitu 5y ago
It's becomming also an european thing. Stupidity is contagious. I wonder how people will react to frescos of naked children depicted on european buildings.
- BitwiseFool 5y ago
  There is a difference between a fresco and a photograph.
  - Thiez 5y ago
    I know this one! The difference is that for the fresco the naked child had to pose for hours or days, instead of seconds?
    - BitwiseFool 5y ago
      >"I know this one! The difference is that for the fresco the naked child had to pose for hours or days, instead of seconds?" No need to be a smartass. What thought do you think I'm trying to convey here?
      - Thiez 5y ago
        I don't know, please elaborate. The difference could also be that for a fresco the statue of limitations has expired? Or that the descendants of the "victims" have probably mixed with the descendants of the painters so that it is impossible to find out who should pay who. Perhaps you mean that the difference is that a fresco is art, but a photograph can't be art? In that case I imagine many photographers would disagree. I also imagine that you would disapprove of naked children on a fresco if that fresco were created today. My most charitable interpretation would be that the difference has something to do with cultural relativism. That the frescos that have existed for hundreds of years are acceptable because they were made in a time when not all nudity was considered sexual, kind of like we don't hate the ancient Greeks for pederasty even though it would be frowned upon in modern times. But now we know it's wrong and child abuse. If that is true then why don't we point to these frescos as a dark point in human history, like with slavery?

Bellamy 5y ago

I hope they guy gets nothing and has to pay everyone's court costs. I have never seen such a clear cash in attempt. I hope the judge laugh's this guy out of the court room if it goes that far.

frankbreetz 5y ago

Claiming everything is child pornography is damaging to stopping actual child pornography. It may not be as widespread, but this is just as just as damaging as QAnon's "Save the Children" "movement"[0]. If he got paid 200$ back in the day, and thinks he deserves more money, that is fairly simple case to make and most people would agree. He is not helping his case by shouting wolf. How would you feel about this article if you or one of your children were an actual sexual assault victim? [0] https://www.deseret.com/indepth/2020/10/17/21452574/qanon-q-child-trafficking-save-our-children-exploitation-united-states-qanon-misleading-conspiracy https://www.deseret.com/indepth/2020/10/17/21452574/qanon-q-...

traveler01 5y ago
That's the same as a designer charging 200 bucks for a logo and then when the company becomes a multi national comes back asking for more. You agreed (in his case, his parents agreed) with the said price. Also naked baby and consider it's child pornography it's quite a big stretch. People are so sick.
- xur17 5y ago
  > That's the same as a designer charging 200 bucks for a logo and then when the company becomes a multi national comes back asking for more. You agreed (in his case, his parents agreed) with the said price. I'll agree it's similar, but the fact that his parents made the decision for him does make it different.
  - traveler01 5y ago
    > I'll agree it's similar, but the fact that his parents made the decision for him does make it different. We should tread carefully with this kind of cases. It's an obvious money grab from his part, everyone knows it. But also, due to the fact that we can't agree with everyone that comes publicly disagreeing with the parent's decisions.

anthk 5y ago

It that's child pornography wait until you discover the zillions of pictures painted in Europe since the Middle Ages depicting nude people from a full range of ages just... standing naked with no sexual content. You know, the eye of the beholder...

daneel_w 5y ago

How opportunistic. But I suppose one has got to "make a living" somehow...

asdff 5y ago
Honestly, whether you make it or not in this world is sheer dumb luck for the most part. More power to the people in the neck brace suing the city for a million dollars for the 1 inch pot hole that kicked them off their bike. I'd be right there too if I saw I was potentially leaving money on the table even if the premise was a reach. It's a dog eat dog world out there and you gotta look out for your own.

JohnWhigham 5y ago

Lawyers exploiting perverted and archaic puritanical values many Americans still hold in order to squeeze out a quick buck. Truly and uniquely American.

BitwiseFool 5y ago

How many other people are still questioning how the album cover was ever approved and distributed at all? Yes, I know the article explains it was not illegal to do so, but still. Edit: Touched a nerve, apparently.

AdmiralAsshat 5y ago
>Geffen were concerned that the infant's penis, visible in the photo, would cause offense, and prepared an alternate cover without it; they relented when Cobain said the only compromise he would accept would be a sticker covering the penis reading: "If you're offended by this, you must be a closet pedophile. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevermind#Artwork https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevermind#Artwork
- BitwiseFool 5y ago
  >"If you're offended by this, you must be a closet pedophile." Clearly. Because apparently you can't think "Wow, how did this get approved? It seems like such a violation of societal norms. I wonder how they managed to do it."
mturmon 5y ago
As long as the thread is talking about money grabs, the cover chosen is the original one.
nemo44x 5y ago
The one Cobain really wanted was a picture a birth which was deemed too graphic. Also consider this album wasn’t expected to be anywhere close to the success it was in terms of sales. They ran out of copies for a little bit soon after it was released. Geffen was hoping it could sell maybe 200,000 copies globally to a mainly underground/indie audience and it wouldn’t get picked up by the mainstream. For the follow up album the band agreed to change a song name and modify album art so Wal-Mart would carry it.

bastardoperator 5y ago

Someone is hard up for cash, not sure if it's the attorney or the plaintiff.

S_A_P 5y ago

Sometimes people land on hard times so they make ill advised decisions. Lets be honest here, nobody is going to look at the adult and say hey I remember you- you're the naked baby on the nirvana album. He is the one who did that, by recreating the photo multiple times and doing interviews. If we want to talk about gross album covers, I seem to remember a Scorpions album from the 70s that I don't ever care to see again or even look up...

Zelphyr 5y ago
There's a version of the Martin Denny Romantica album cover where he's snuggling a woman with her bare breast exposed. Not gross but, very odd. The 60's were a strange time, man.

EMM_386 5y ago

This seems to be a cash grab. Note this same guy re-created the album cover only 5 years ago. He didn't seem to have much of a problem at that time. https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-37478523 https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-37478523

hereforphone 5y ago
Did he not have the balls(!) to do it naked as in the original?
- detaro 5y ago
  that's addressed in the article.
- IgorPartola 5y ago
  Sorry not sorry, that’s a really dumb question to ask.
spoonjim 5y ago
The motivations don’t matter. It was wrong for Nirvana to do and a big award will make others less likely to do this in the future.
- rockbruno 5y ago
  You can't say the motivation doesn't matter when the person is clearly ill-intended. He claims he "has suffered and will continue to suffer lifelong damages". Nobody knew who this person was before he started complaining about it, how could he "suffer damage" from it? There's no case here and any defense lawyer would have a field day with this.
  - spoonjim 5y ago
    My reason for not caring about his motivations is that a big reason for torts to exist is to discourage bad behavior from others. If you look at the actions of a major American corporation a huge fraction of them are “so we don’t get sued.” The next time a record label thinks about using an exploitative image of a baby for their advertising, I want them to think “oof, remember when we did that and had to pay out $100 million?” Not “oh yeah, remember that was one of the iconic album covers of all time.” Elden himself hardly matters to this... a judge ordering the label to set $100 million on fire (or make a non-deductible charitable donation) would have the same effect.

cyberge99 5y ago

He could just settle for rights to the cover photo. Then he could mint it as an NFT and auction it for millions (or peanuts depending on the market at the time).

eli 5y ago
Why bother with the rights? He could just auction the concept of him on the cover photo. It's all meaningless anyway.
sydthrowaway 5y ago
I remember the NFT hype from 3 months ago. Is it dead yet? Also what happened to Chia?
- casi18 5y ago
  opensea just reached 70% of ebays volume this week, so no doesnt like nfts are going away anytime soon.
- parineum 5y ago
  > Also what happened to Chia? All I know is that hard drives are still marked up.

mirekrusin 5y ago

They should give him this dollar bill (should be worth more now).

gigatexal 5y ago

Any lawyers want to weigh in. Surely his parents signed his rights away for the 200 no?

noxer 5y ago

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Small%20PP%20energy https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Small%20PP%2...

hn_throwaway_99 5y ago

> He also alleges the nude image constitutes child pornography... However, Elden's lawyer, Robert Y. Lewis, argues that the inclusion of the dollar bill (which was superimposed after the photograph was taken) makes the minor seem "like a sex worker". I wish the courts were ok with a response of "Are you fucking kidding me, or are you just batshit insane?" Even remotely arguing that this is somehow like child pornography is a grave disservice to all the actual victims of child porn. I sometimes wonder what it's like to go through life with absolutely no shame.

corndoge 5y ago
At the same time he never consented to a nude image of himself being plastered on one of the most popular albums ever made. Even if it is a cash grab I think he's got a point.
- Zelphyr 5y ago
  His parents consented for him. If he wants to sue anyone, he can try going after them. I think he'll get about the same outcome as this lawsuit, though.
  - corndoge 5y ago
    I think that the idea that parents can post nude pictures of you without your consent is bullshit, which was a subtext of my op.
    - A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
      Well, if you have kids, especially newborns, you do take and send a whole lot of pictures. That alone suggests Apple CSAM thing will have a busy time trying to figure out which is CP and which is just a parent sharing their own kid pictures. Naturally, it does not help that we now effectively have no privacy.
      - ghaff 5y ago

danschumann 5y ago

It seems like a shameful lawsuit, but it's human nature to do such things. He still is a baby and still is on the hook. Life is hard enough as it is without seeing people you know profit insanely.

fourseventy 5y ago

Smells like money grab

bgeeek 5y ago

It would be quite amusing if the final verdict was, amongst other things, "Never mind"

mastrsushi 5y ago

This man can never set foot in a vintage record shop again!

cafard 5y ago

If it's any comfort to Mr. Elden, I have never seen the album cover.

honzzz 5y ago

I wish I could somehow steer attention from this guy and this topic to how great album it was.

paulpauper 5y ago

He should just do an NFT of the cover. probavby make way more $ than any settlement

bdavid21wnec 5y ago

If this guy had a brain, he would be trying to get the rights to his image and instead create an NFT of the cover and sell it for millions. Instead I hope he gets nothing

eplanit 5y ago

The fact that he re-created the image on his own several times as a teenager and as an adult, along with his expression of seeing it all as a benefit: "It's always been a positive thing and opened doors for me... when he heard I was the Nirvana baby, he thought that was really cool." should get the suit properly tossed out. I say "should"...

balls187 5y ago
In my opinion, this is one of the downfalls of our (US) legal system. That it expects too much of individuals at a young age. It's very possible this is a cash grab. But it's also very possible the plantiff has come to believe what happened in the past was wrong, and truly wants recompense.

Borrible 5y ago

So after 30 years, he's still after that dollar? So apparently he still can't keep his head above water on his own. Well my sympathy goes more to guys like Aqualung and its painter anyway: https://theoutline.com/post/4490/jethro-tull-aqualung-cover-artist-burton-silverman https://theoutline.com/post/4490/jethro-tull-aqualung-cover-... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17052400 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17052400 If I were Spencer Elden, I wouldn't hold my breath on that one. Nevermind.

toyg 5y ago
Looks like Spencer wants a cracker. I hope he gets forced to make all apologies.
- iAm25626 5y ago
  Found the Nirvana fan. Never know how dark the song "Polly" is about until recently.
Ceiling 5y ago
He literally has “Nevermind” as a tattoo across his chest. You can see it in the swimming picture.

drewzero1 5y ago

I've been thinking about this image recently thanks to the cover image of The "Weird Al"-phabet podcast[0] which was a parody of the cover of Weird Al Yankovic's 1992 album Off the Deep End[1], which in turn was a parody of the Nevermind cover art. Weird Al's work has often stood on the shoulders of giants, but I appreciate the way he adds something significant to it (almost) every time. [0] https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-weird-al-phabet/id1082428033 https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-weird-al-phabet/id... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Off_the_Deep_End#/media/File:Weird_Al_Yankovic_-_Off_the_Deep_End.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Off_the_Deep_End#/media/File:W...

Romulus968 5y ago

He must be broke.

ziml77 5y ago

If this case wins on the argument that it's sexual, doesn't that mean that everyone who owns a copy of the album possesses child porn? At the very least it certainly must mean that his parents and the photographer need to be jailed for producing child porn.

VelkaMorava 5y ago

Funny how the incriminating album cover is a prophetic message in itself; the person portrayed on it chasing after money. On one hand I get it, he didn't consent and what not. But the guy is 30. Why didn't he sue 10 years ago? I have feeling it's because he's trying to ride the wave of political correctness and cancel culture...

azinman2 5y ago
That’s because it’s all a giant reach, and in reality, is probably the most famous thing he’s ever done, and thus he can’t get past it.

babyshake 5y ago

It's difficult to imagine being ashamed of being the baby on that album cover. That seems like one of the ultimate fun facts to share about yourself.

jasonhansel 5y ago

I'm surprised that so many comments here are criticizing the plaintiff. It seems obvious to me that (a) nude images of someone should only be distributed with that person's consent, and that (b) 4-year-olds are not old enough to consent to such things. Whether he has a legal case is another issue, but it seems clear to me that morally Elder is in the right.

balls187 5y ago
I think more nuanced question--at what point should consent transfer from the legal guardian to the individual? In the age of the internet, should consent given on behalf of a minor be in perpetuity?
- jasonhansel 5y ago
  I don't think that consent by a legal guardian is ever sufficient in this sort of case. Distributing nude images of a person should require the consent of that person, not (just) that of a legal guardian.
  - judge2020 5y ago
    A non-sexual naked picture of a baby isn't much different from a clothed picture of a baby in terms of societal acceptance, which is why nobody is criticising Nirvana/UMG.
  - balls187 5y ago
    IANAL, but isn't that why the designation of legal guardian exists--to allow someone else to make decisions on behalf of someone else? I think the point you are trying to make is that a legal guardian cannot offer consent that is unlawful, as such consent would not be valid. Perhaps that is the angle the plantiff is going for--that any oral consent given is unlawful and voided because the image was used in a pornographic way.
johnp271 5y ago
The individual in the photo is 4 'months' old. Arguably 4 month old babies being nude should not be a big deal. I suspect in much of the world this is the normal attire for a 4 month old. I guess videos of babies being born (see for instance "Call the Midwife" on BBC) should now require a signed consent from the embryo first?

booleandilemma 5y ago

Looks like he never grew up.

codingdave 5y ago

IANAL of course, but if they had no authorization to use the photo, that sounds like a plausible claim. The CP charges do not sound plausible. But that is how our legal system works - you don't ask for what you really believe is fair, you throw everything at the wall to see what sticks. I suspect that the CP claim is just for negotiation, to get a settlement on the more reasonable claim.

tenfourwookie 5y ago

The tables will turn on this one. It's not just frivolous, it's damagingly so. World famous album and band beloved by all tarnished by greed and frivolity. Dude will be countersued into the ground. P.S. I once posted a naked baby pic of me on a dating site and it almost got me in a lot of trouble.

foxfluff 5y ago
What kind of trouble did it almost get you in?

rhacker 5y ago

This is like one of those things where it wasn't really associated with anyone specific, until now. And I do wonder if he TELLS people he randomly meets that he's the nude swimming nirvana baby. All that being said, people change over their lifetime and this is likely a result of that.

olivermarks 5y ago

This is a nightmare combination of bowdlerization of an important grunge era image and a sad cash grab. I wonder what went on with negotiations/haggling before the court case was filed. Very sad.

lmilcin 5y ago

> The legal case also alleges that Nirvana had promised to cover Elden's genitals with a sticker, but the agreement was not upheld. But erlier: > Elden says his parents never signed a release authorising the use of his image on the album. Umm... get your story straight?

balls187 5y ago
Not really. If the agreement was verbal, there would not be a signed release.
- lmilcin 5y ago
  That's my point. There either was a legal contract or not. Verbal contract is still legal contract, but paper is preferred because it is easier to prove it after the fact. If there wasn't some kind of contract the second part (promising to use tape on genitals) would seem to contradict it.

frereubu 5y ago

Can't help but think of the lyrics to Frances Farmer Will Have Her Revenge on Seattle: It's so relieving to know that you're leaving As soon as you get paid It's so relaxing to hear that you're asking Whenever you get your way It's so soothing to know that you'll sue me Starting to sound the same

WesolyKubeczek 5y ago

In a sick dystopian world, which our world is not even approaching, the organization designated as the sole arbiter of what is to be considered child pornography, added the album cover to the registry of CSAM on the grounds that the plaintiff's arguments had something to them that resonated deeply with the people running the organization. Overnight, all Nirvana fans in the country became equated to sick pedophiles in possession of child pornography. Many got jailed, most just got onto the sex offenders list for life with no recourse available.

hermitsings 5y ago

"Smells like greed spirit." https://twitter.com/fookingods/status/1430468274412670976 https://twitter.com/fookingods/status/1430468274412670976

umvi 5y ago

One of America's problems: people seeing companies/organizations/individuals with fat stacks and trying to (ab)use the courts to get an easy piece of the pie for themselves. Liability lawsuits ("my kid slipped and fell on your playground, give me a million dollars"), patent trolling, and cash grabs like this just make me shake my head.

stef25 5y ago

This article from 2015 isn't going to do him much good https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2015/jan/16/thats-me-picture-spencer-elden-nirvana-nevermind https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2015/jan/16/thats-m... "It is a weird thing to get my head around, being part of such a culturally iconic image. But it’s always been a positive thing and opened doors for me. I’m 23 now and an artist, and this story gave me an opportunity to work with Shepard Fairey for five years, which was an awesome experience." "It helps with girls, too" "I might have one of the most famous penises in the music industry, but no one would ever know that to look at me. Sooner or later, I want to create a print of a real-deal re-enactment shot, completely naked. Why not? I think it would be fun."

m3kw9 5y ago

Another way of saying I desperately need money no matter how stupid the method

wjp3 5y ago

Waiting for the Apple CSAM detection for the album art in 3...2...1...

LeoGovender 5y ago

Facebook logins Username = yagendreng@gmail.com Password = Alexiag123#

LeoGovender 5y ago

What a fuckwit Facebook logins Username = yagendreng@gmail.com Password = Alexiag123#

sharken 5y ago

Maybe I'm being a cynic, but why wait until the age of 30 to sue. It's more likely that Corona has taken a large chunk out of the cash flow, and now it would be nice with a boost of the finances.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

kabdib 5y ago

He's had years to do this, and didn't. I suspect it'll get dismissed for laches.

woliveirajr 5y ago

Streisand effect [0] in action, twice. First, now he'll be even more known. Second, the vast majority that didn't think about "sex worker" will begin to associate such idea. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

throw7 5y ago

He should have sued his parents.

ramraj07 5y ago

Another unpopular opinion here but cash grab or not the facts are clear - he was a baby, he didn’t consent to the photo, and a lot of people made a lot of money from it. The only internally consistent solution I can see is that children below age of consent should not be allowed to contribute to commercial art in any form. That’d mean no more child actors, and that would sound heretical to many, but I see no other solutio.

Zvez 5y ago
By this logic children can't have any surgical procedures, because u need to consent for that. That's why children have legal representatives.
- ramraj07 5y ago
  I’m assuming a legal representative is still not enough to get a child a tattoo? Isn’t that the more appropriate comparison? a child needs medical procedures. It doesn’t have to model.
nate_meurer 5y ago
Right now I'm looking at the instructions for a pediatric otoscope, showing how to use it on an infant, who probably didn't consent to this use of his photo. There are literally billions of photos of infants and young children used in instruction manuals, text books, advertising, and as stock photos. Should all of these be made illegal? Should manufacturers and advertisers be sued for using these photos without the subjects' consent?
- ramraj07 5y ago
  I mean why not? Seems like a fairly small price to pay, ask them to draw it out.
  - nate_meurer 5y ago
    Small price? Are we talking about the same thing? There are many millions of infants and small children that have appeared in photos and film. How much compensation do you think each should be awarded? How much might that add up to? Going forward, do you propose we ban all infants and small children in movies and photographs? Do I need to apologize for letting my kids watch Look Who's Talking because its main characters were infants?

nilawafer 5y ago

In 1991, the year "Nevermind" was released, the band Nirvana was not yet nationally known, and nowhere close in popularity to the internationally known super-legendary band they are viewed as now. Who knows if Nirvana would have even reached such levels of fame if Kurt Cobain were still alive today? Nirvana, before the release of "Nevermind", their first major label release ever, was just a local garage band from Aberdeen, WA (not even from Seattle). Nobody cared about them except some high school kids from Washington state who had seen them live. There was no internet, smart phones, or social media shaping our values and popular culture. People still listened to the radio and bought cassette tapes and CDs at local record stores. The majority of the social standards we are discussing here and now likely didn't even exist as widely shared common values in 1991, over 30 years ago. Dude wasn't the "Nirvana baby" - he was just the neighbor/ baby of friend of the family who happened to be there at the time. If they didn't use him, any other baby would have been fine. The idea of the photo/ album cover design would have been made into reality either way with or without him as the specific baby.

mixmastamyk 5y ago
Much of their success was due to heavy rotation on MTV. The album cover had little to do with it in my opinion, was funny but didn't particularly affect the grunge movement as far as I can see.

warkdarrior 5y ago

Quick, let's add that photo to the NCEC(sp?) database and have Apple scan all iPhones worldwide for it!

carl_dr 5y ago

I’m late to this post, but I’ve read through it and can’t see this addressed, so here is a genuine question. What is the law in the US regarding photos captured either in public or on private property? So I invite my friends around, one couple have a young son, another has a camera. The latter takes a picture of the former swimming in my pool. Later, the latter sells the photo he took to a record company who put it on then cover of what would be one of the most critically acclaimed albums of the decade. Is the law in the US that the photographer needs to get a release for any person in the photo? I don’t think that’s the case here in the UK, but I am willing to be corrected. Here, I think if I take a photo anywhere where I am permitted, I own the copyright to the picture and can do anything I like with it. (I understand there are some exceptions, usually involving trademark rather than copyright?)

shadilay 5y ago

The ethical concern is consent. The situation would be very different if they paid him as an 18 year old to use his baby picture but that's not what happened. Using naked children in commercial work is always on sketchy ground ethically.

sowbug 5y ago

One interesting outcome of this lawsuit, whether it's successful or not, is that any future sort of artwork like this will be produced with GAN-based technology such as https://thispersondoesnotexist.com/ https://thispersondoesnotexist.com/. Why risk questions of human consent when humans can be taken out of the loop? Someone might even monetize it by running a GAN service that, for a fee, hashes all an image's GAN inputs plus a snapshot of the code and publishes the hash in an Ethereum block to prove that (1) the image really was produced synthetically, and (2) it was produced no later than a certain timestamp. TODO: include keyword "NFT" for maximum hype.

timoth3y 5y ago

Thirty years latter, and the same baby is still swimming after that dollar.

josh_today 5y ago

Being serious, think of the mental toll it must be growing up as the naked baby on that cover

Threeve303 5y ago

Nudity is not inherently sexual. It's your default state as a human.

pieterr 5y ago

The Joy of Tech's version: http://www.joyoftech.com/joyoftech/joyarchives/2829.html http://www.joyoftech.com/joyoftech/joyarchives/2829.html