Man who was the baby on Nirvana's Nevermind cover sues for child exploitation

[bcla]

The guy is 30 now and has re-created versions of the cover as a joke, but now he's suing the members of Nirvana for child exploitation. Apparently his parents were paid $200 for it (saw that in other sources). There are plenty of places where one can see the full version, but there are some images that are carefully cropped to avoid the naughty bits.

https://www.npr.org/2021/08/25/1030918537/spencer-elden-nirvana-nevermind-baby-cover-lawsuit​

That baby — the now 30-year-old Spencer Elden — is suing Nirvana for child exploitation and pornography, saying the band knowingly distributed the naked photo of Elden as a baby and profited from it.​

​

He's asking for $150,000 in damages from each of the defendants, which include members of the band, Kurt Cobain's estate, photographer Kirk Weddle, Universal Music, Geffen Records, Warner Records and MCA Music.​

​

The cover photo was shot by Weddle, who was a friend of Elden's father. The lawsuit accuses Weddle of producing a "sexually graphic" photo of Elden. It adds that there was initially pushback against featuring Elden's genitals on the album cover and the plan was to place a sticker over it.​

​

"The sticker, however, was never incorporated into the album cover," the lawsuit states.​

 

[starvenger]

Not that he can't change his tune, but things like getting paid $200 to recreate the cover is not going to help his argument. But it looks as if he retained an appropriate lawyer for this case, so I guess we let this play out and see where it takes us.

Anyway, my thoughts here: child exploitation... he should probably sue his parents, who pocketed the original $200 for the photo. But of course they did not make money off the album. And it would be difficult to prove that the album was successful because there was a naked baby on the cover. Identifiable because of the picture, sure. Successful because of it, highly unlikely.

As for the other charge... the photo is probably considered art, and clearly depicts nudity in a non-obscene manner, so I'm guessing there is a law protecting it?

 

[wenrob]

A naked baby (or naked anyone) does not equal “sexually graphic.” I’m thinking he’d have to prove that was the intent. His parents took money for the photo and he willingly recreated it and didn’t seem to have an issue with it when he did that.

 

[GreatLakes]

I can't imagine the record label didn't get all of the signatures and consent required before approving the album and I'm not sure how a naked picture in that context is exploitation.

 

[dclpluto]

He needs to blame his parents. His parents are the ones that did it to him. I’m sure it hasn’t effected him in anyway he just wants a payday. But the parents are to blame if he wants to blame anyone.

 

[starvenger]

A naked baby (or naked anyone) does not equal “sexually graphic.” I’m thinking he’d have to prove that was the intent. His parents took money for the photo and he willingly recreated it and didn’t seem to have an issue with it when he did that.

This is actually something I'm not that bothered by. You can do something 5 years prior and then have a change of heart. So I get that. But at the same time, the something that he did is certainly not going to do him any favours for what he's trying to establish here.

I can't imagine the record label didn't get all of the signatures and consent required before approving the album and I'm not sure how a naked picture in that context is exploitation.

Based on the story of how the picture came to be, I think the onus to obtain consent lays with whomever the photo copyright belonged to at the time, which is probably the photographer. And if I read the story correctly, he obtained verbal consent from the parent, Elden's father.

I mean to me, a non-lawyer, I don't see much of a case here just based on that. But hopefully we have some real lawyers on the board that can educate us here.

 

[neverlandsky]

Actually I worked in electronics from the late 90s to mid 2000s. At the store I worked at, the sticker was incorporated on the disc. It was a circle sticker on the outside of the plastic wrapped CD that covered the area. There were several CDs that came with censor stickers, Baby Nirvana was one of many.

 

[bcla]

Based on the story of how the picture came to be, I think the onus to obtain consent lays with whomever the photo copyright belonged to at the time, which is probably the photographer. And if I read the story correctly, he obtained verbal consent from the parent, Elden's father.

I been to a museum (a science museum ironically) where there was a collection of photos by a famous photographer. It included several nudes, including photos of the photographer's minor children. That would be an interesting case if the children ever objected when they became adults.

 

[wenrob]

Actually I worked in electronics from the late 90s to mid 2000s. At the store I worked at, the sticker was incorporated on the disc. It was a circle sticker on the outside of the plastic wrapped CD that covered the area. There were several CDs that came with censor stickers, Baby Nirvana was one of many.

I never owned that album but I did haunt music stores and my memory of it was with the sticker. So much so I assumed it was part of the artwork.

 

[Heather07438]

David is suing Michaleangelo's estate

 

[Heather07438]

My first encounter with Nirvana was a homemade a tape a friend gave me. He recorded Nirvana on one side and Red Hot Chili Peppers on the other. He was like "You need to have this." lol

 

[PollyannaMom]

It sounds to me like it's just a money grab.

How exactly is he saying he was negatively affected by the whole thing? If he hadn't chosen to tell anyone it was him (or recreate the shot...several times) how would anyone today even know he had a connection to it?

I'm not saying I would have let my kid be part of stunt like that. (In fact, I always thought the cover was in poor taste.) But if his parents agreed and were paid, it's on them to have not asked for some kind of ongoing royalties if he now feels he's owed more.

 

[RedAngie]

Just sic Courtney on him.

 

[SeanWM48]

album sold north of 30 million copies. let's say it was an average of 10-12 bucks a clip. you do the math.

it's on the parents, i don't know what kind of leverage they'd really have, but if they demanded even half of once percent of the sales they'd be millionaires now.

edit - ONE percent**

 

[bgirldeb]

Not that he can't change his tune, but things like getting paid $200 to recreate the cover is not going to help his argument.

He recreated it at the 10th, 17th, 20th and 25th anniversaries. Seems like he was okay with it to me, since he was an adult for the last two.

 

[RUDisney]

It's a complete money grab.

Don't worry, @RedAngie, Courtney will be after him. She likes to DO the suing, not be the one being sued. Now, if he was just going after Dave Grohl... she'd be waving his banner to bring Dave down.

It's funny that he picked such a small amount from all of the defendants, $150k per each. Granted, that is over $2M, but it's still a small amount from each. It's as if he thought through it with his lawyer and figured that was chump change to most of those being sued and they may just pay it to make him go away.

 

[PollyannaMom]

It's funny that he picked such a small amount from all of the defendants, $150k per each. Granted, that is over $2M, but it's still a small amount from each. It's as if he thought through it with his lawyer and figured that was chump change to most of those being sued and they may just pay it to make him go away.

I think that's exactly it!

 

[RedAngie]

It's a complete money grab.

Don't worry, @RedAngie, Courtney will be after him. She likes to DO the suing, not be the one being sued. Now, if he was just going after Dave Grohl... she'd be waving his banner to bring Dave down.

It's funny that he picked such a small amount from all of the defendants, $150k per each. Granted, that is over $2M, but it's still a small amount from each. It's as if he thought through it with his lawyer and figured that was chump change to most of those being sued and they may just pay it to make him go away.

Or he’ll settle for 10K from each defendant.

 

[Jennasis]

I thought I'd heard he asked the remaining members of Nirvana to help him with an art project some months ago and they declined. If so. This feels like revenge from someone who is hard up for money.

 

[starvenger]

He recreated it at the 10th, 17th, 20th and 25th anniversaries. Seems like he was okay with it to me, since he was an adult for the last two.

That was part of my point. He's been okay with doing tributes to the cover, and even to a non-lawyer like myself, that's an obvious thing to point out if you're the defence.

But the other point was that he is allowed to change his stance on whether he is OK with the picture or not. That, in and of itself, is fine - you get older, and sometimes your opinions change. But combine that with what appears to be a frivolous lawsuit... well, that's when we, the public, start questioning your motivations for changing your tune.