https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/25/arts … rmind.html

The baby, now grown, who appears on Nirvanas' Nevermind album (1991) has sued the Band claiming they 'engaged in Child Pornography'.

thoughts ?  I'll add mine later

Not able to read the article as it's blocked unless accessed with a paid subscription.

A greedy guy + a hungry legal predator - both looking for undeserved money.

An interesting side thought: which came first?  Did the physically grown up (but mentally undeveloped) baby decide to make a run for the money and went out to find a lawyer, or did the lawyer see the money and track down the big baby?

I'm under the impression that even owning a copy of the album cover or a digital copy of the image might constitute 'possession of child pornography' in many states and other countries. A photo showing genitalia of a baby is the issue.

I can see both sides of this. I see similarities between the fact that today, many women are looking back at their experiences through the #metoo lens of today and holding people accountable for actions that were deemed acceptable in the past. Just because there was nobody who would listen many years ago doesn't mean that abuse/harassment/assault didn't occur. How far can we/should we go back to right the wrongs? Where is that line, and who decides what the line is? I don't have those answers.
So, I can see this guy going along in life and just accepting and even promoting himself as the cover baby and then one day realizing that he maybe wouldn't have chosen that for himself. I don't think the word I'd use is pornography, but he certainly had his right to privacy taken away by his parents, the photographer and the band. I understand that there's some disagreement over whether the parents had agreed only to the use of an image that didn't show his genitals, but I think it was up to them years ago to protest the publication when the album was released with the full nude image.
The other side is that in the past children really weren't really looked at as independent humans whose parents shouldn't have carte blanch over some matters. And this was when it wasn't politically incorrect to show an innocent picture of children naked in the bathtub to your family and friends. Nudity didn't always equal pornography. As a nation it seems we are more puritanical than ever.

Yeah, this one is kinda complex. I absolutely don't buy the argument that the image should suddenly be regarded as pornography on the 30th anniversary of the album, when it sure wasn't generally regarded as such on release, or on its 10th anniversary, or on its 20th, etc. Could certainly be seen as opportunistic money grab, further reinforcing the irony of the image's message. Also, fans of slippery slope narratives will be all over this one, and rightly so.

And yet, if there is a legally-valid claim that allows Dude to extract value from corporate entities based on their exploitation of his likeness, more power to him, because corporate entities wouldn't hesitate for one second to act accordingly... in fact, their entire business model is predicated on legally-valid exploitation as standard operating procedure. I may disagree personally with the angle he is using to stake his claim, but I am wholly OK with him having his say in court and seizing some benjamins if that claim withstands legal scrutiny.

I do feel it's kinda shitty to be dragging the photographer into this after all these years, though. The lawsuit makes him sound like an accomplice to seriously awful behavior, and that part I also don't buy at all.

I hope this fails

This news "was" all over Facebook and Twitter.

Spencer Elden, the cover star of Nirvana's iconic Nevermind album, is suing the band $150,000 for 'exploitation'.
Spencer, now 30, was just four months old when he appeared on the cover of the 1991 record, swimming in a pool and following a dollar bill on a hook. With over 30 million copies sold, Nevermind is one of the best-selling albums of all time.
He's suing band members Dave Grohl, Krist Novoselic, and Kurt Cobain's estate, alleging that he could not consent to being pictured for the artwork, and claims he has suffered 'lifelong damages' because of it.

This  is what I posted;

GIVE THE DUDE THE DOLLAR HE WAS CHASING ALREADY! 
Yes, so how about an out of court settlement for the one time payment of the ONE DOLLAR??? It's sad that so many people in this country are so greedy! Heck, he is forever a part of MUSIC HISTORY as the baby on a huge selling album back in the day! So even if he doesn't get a payday from it, I guess this is his way of making sure we know?

If I were the judge in this case, I would award Spencer Elden the ONE DOLLAR BILL that he was chasing after in the picture on the album. I was stuck in the middle of a dispute between two non profit organizations that went to court over their personal grievances against each other. The judge awarded one party $1 after scolding them for unnecessary drama. I like that idea! 
As a judge, I'd also tell him "Dude! You're wasting the courts and my time.  Get a job already!"  then  "Next case!"  😂


From what I understand, he was fine with everything until they wouldn't get involved with his art show. He is a starving artist living in his moms home.

Child Pornography ? smh I really cant stand the modern world(says the old get off my lawn guy)

Gonna have to charge Led Zeppelin too for Houses of the Holy
How did we come to place when its worse than the 50s ?

Two comments...

First, neither the Government or any other authority has claimed it was pornographic.  Let's keep in mind that claim is only coming from Spenser Elden's lawsuit.  Yes, there really is some common sense out there!

Second, in my mind there's an even bigger question on the amount of damages.

He is suing for the damages to his life.  Specifically, how it will "damage his career" (as a model), his "lifelong suffering" from the iconic album cover, and his "permanent emotional distress with physical manifestations".

Now consider this if you were judging this case and those claims.

- He's issued photos of himself commemorating the shot on major anniversaries of the iconic album.

- He has also tattooed "Nevermind" (the name of the album) very prominently across his chest.




IMHO, he might have difficulty getting awarded one dollar in "damages"...

Mischievous and Deceitful, Chicanerous and Deplorable.

UPDATE:  According to the Guardian, Spin, and other news sources, the California District Court dismissed the lawsuit yesterday.

For once the system works