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

[Mysterian]

I hope the Bee Girl from the Blind Melon album cover would chime in on this story, just because.

 

[starvenger]

Bee Girl showed up on the game show "Let Me See Your Voice". Turns out that she, in fact, cannot sing.

 

[fly girl]

Money grab. Sorry. That is all I see it as.

Funny how he is now suffering from lifelong damages. Odd that you would recreate the photo several times for something that was causing you pain and suffering?


I read the CBS article about it:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nirvana-baby-spencer-elden-nevermind-sue-child-porn/
Cliff Notes of article:

The lawsuit says the photo, allegedly chosen by Nirvana's late frontman, Kurt Cobain, suggests a "sex worker grabbing for a dollar bill."

The lawsuit alleges that Elden's parents never authorized the band to use the photo, which was taken at a Pasadena aquatic center in 1990, and that Elden received no compensation for it.

"To ensure the album cover would trigger a visceral sexual response from the viewer, (photographer Kirk) Weddle activated Spencer's 'gag reflex' before throwing him underwater in poses highlighting and emphasizing Spencer's exposed genitals," the suit alleges.

As a result, the complaint claims, Elden "has suffered and will continue to suffer lifelong damages."

Elden has recreated the iconic photo several times, once in 2008, when he was 17, and then again in 2016 to mark the album's 25th anniversary. Elden wore shorts for both of those shoots. He told the New York Post that he was paid $200 for the 2016 photo, the same amount of money his father in 2008 told NPR he was offered for the original photoshoot that led to the album cover.

 

[wenrob]

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.

It’s not the model that would receive royalties though, it would be the photographer. Once that image is made it belongs to him/her and they get to decided whether to keep some kind of rights for use or flat out sell it and give away the rights. This guy’s part was done once his parents accepted the deal. Like you said, it would be the parents he’d need to seek damages from not the band.

I agree he’s probably doing it this way hoping they’ll just pay him out to make him go away. Dude will still be broke though after paying the lawyer.

 

[wenrob]

Money grab. Sorry. That is all I see it as.

Funny how he is now suffering from lifelong damages. Odd that you would recreate the photo several times for something that was causing you pain and suffering?


I read the CBS article about it:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nirvana-baby-spencer-elden-nevermind-sue-child-porn/
Cliff Notes of article:

The lawsuit says the photo, allegedly chosen by Nirvana's late frontman, Kurt Cobain, suggests a "sex worker grabbing for a dollar bill."

The lawsuit alleges that Elden's parents never authorized the band to use the photo, which was taken at a Pasadena aquatic center in 1990, and that Elden received no compensation for it.

"To ensure the album cover would trigger a visceral sexual response from the viewer, (photographer Kirk) Weddle activated Spencer's 'gag reflex' before throwing him underwater in poses highlighting and emphasizing Spencer's exposed genitals," the suit alleges.

As a result, the complaint claims, Elden "has suffered and will continue to suffer lifelong damages."

Elden has recreated the iconic photo several times, once in 2008, when he was 17, and then again in 2016 to mark the album's 25th anniversary. Elden wore shorts for both of those shoots. He told the New York Post that he was paid $200 for the 2016 photo, the same amount of money his father in 2008 told NPR he was offered for the original photoshoot that led to the album cover.

The parents authorized the photo being taken. It ends there. After that it’s up to the photographer to decide what happens with it. No doubt that’s why they’re going for “damages” aspect.

 

[GreatLakes]

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**

I'm not sure cover art gets a piece of the sales. I have no real idea but it just doesn't seem like that would be SOP.

 

[SeanWM48]

I'm not sure cover art gets a piece of the sales. I have no real idea but it just doesn't seem like that would be SOP.

ah. yeah i don't really know either was just throwing ideas around. overall i doubt he'd win anything but maybe the band throws him a few grand to make it go away instead of dragging to court.

 

[mrodgers]

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**

It doesn't matter how much the album was sold for.

A photographer took a picture of someone. Legal.

Said photographer owns said picture. Legal.

Photographer grants the parents the rights to the picture. Legal.

Parents sold photo to whoever inside however these things are with albums, musicians, producers, etc. Legal as they were granted the right by the copywrite holder.

Music entities used photo they paid for in the art of the album cover. Legal.

What is to sue over? Everything is covered. Your image can be used by anyone in an artistic way including being sold. You can't use someone's image in a commercial sense as promoting a product or in advertising. This photo is art and was utilized as art.

 

[SeanWM48]

It doesn't matter how much the album was sold for.

A photographer took a picture of someone. Legal.

Said photographer owns said picture. Legal.

Photographer grants the parents the rights to the picture. Legal.

Parents sold photo to whoever inside however these things are with albums, musicians, producers, etc. Legal as they were granted the right by the copywrite holder.

Music entities used photo they paid for in the art of the album cover. Legal.

What is to sue over? Everything is covered. Your image can be used by anyone in an artistic way including being sold. You can't use someone's image in a commercial sense as promoting a product or in advertising. This photo is art and was utilized as art.

was this towards my post? i'm not saying they should be able to win. was just spitballing why the guy is doing it

 

[mrodgers]

was this towards my post? i'm not saying they should be able to win. was just spitballing why the guy is doing it

"Towards" your post, no, not in a confrontational way. Just utilizing your post and thoughts to post mine, that's all.

 

[DisneyOma]

How can using a photo of a naked child to sell an album not be exploitation of that child? Why wasn't it dealt with when it first came out?

 

[bgirldeb]

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.

I agree,
I was just expanding on that part

 

[wenrob]

How can using a photo of a naked child to sell an album not be exploitation of that child? Why wasn't it dealt with when it first came out?

If you want to go that route then any child model/actor is being exploited by THEIR PARENTS naked or not. It wasn’t “dealt with” because there’s nothing wrong with a baby being unclothed. There’s nothing sexual about that photo at all. Do you have issues with the Anne Geddes photos?

 

[PollyannaMom]

Do you have issues with the Anne Geddes photos?

This thread made me remember those too. They used to be all over!

 

[Silver saucer]

Oh No!!
Is the Coppertone baby next????

 

[wenrob]

This thread made me remember those too. They used to be all over!

I had a friend who had every single one framed.

IMO there’s no difference except for one is cutesy and the other is on the cover of a gritty album. The photo itself is just a naked baby in a pool. I’ve seen that countless times over my lifetime.

 

[little tess]

If Brooke Shields can't win her case in court to have her childhood "art" pictures removed from publication due to exploitation, I don't think Nirvana baby-man has a chance.

 

[RedAngie]

The whole thing is just re-dick-you-lus.

 

[tzolkin]

How can using a photo of a naked child to sell an album not be exploitation of that child? Why wasn't it dealt with when it first came out?

It wasn’t “dealt with” because at the time most people found nothing wrong with a naked baby.

He is alleging it was child pornography, but that is defined federally as “any visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct involving a minor”. I don’t think that the average person would consider and infant swimming to be “sexually explicit conduct”. It’s subjective whether or not people would view this image as sexually suggestive.

I certainly think today people would be more cautious with a naked image of their baby, but I don’t think that was much of a consideration 30 years ago. Every old family photo album I have seen had pictures of naked kids taking a bath or running around or potty training etc. In more recent years, parents tend to be more cautious of sharing naked pictures of their babies/toddlers. When parents do take a picture of their baby’s first bath, I think most now put a washcloth over their genitals or take the photo from an angle where nothing is shown. 30+ years ago, I think most people viewed a naked baby photo as something innocent and not a big deal.

Regarding the article, I can understand being bothered knowing your image is out there, but he alleges he was teased and received a lot of attention for it. I’m really not sure how anyone would have even known the guy was the baby in the photo if he hadn’t told them, recreated the photo multiple times over the years, and done interviews for magazines. It‘s difficult to see him as traumatized by people knowing he was the baby on the Nirvana album cover when he seemed to be constantly seeking fame for it whenever people startted forgetting who he was.

 

[White Cat]

Oh No!!
Is the Coppertone baby next????

What about Kym Karath in the movie The Thrill of It All. A topless little girl.