Nirvana's 'Nevermind' album cover baby sues Cobain estate, et al.

The baby in the photo of Nirvana's "Nevermind" album is suing the estate of Nirvana and Kurt Cobain.

In the suit, Spencer Elden, who is the baby in the photo, is the Plaintiff.

This is an interesting lawsuit, but where I disagree with Elden is that the photo is child pornography like he claims, and much of his lawsuit rises or falls on whether or not the photo is, indeed, child pornography (herein referred to as CP).

I was a professional photographer for about 13 years or so, before I retired, and I resent the implication that this photo is CP. It is art, and I've seen the photo a number of times when I first viewed it in the 90s, and I was in my 40s, and never once, did I, nor did anyone I know, ever think of this photo on any kind of sexual level. I think the CP argument is bogus. A photo of a nude person, per se, is not sexual, and of course, we must be particularly sensitive to photos of children.

But this is a baby, and if being a naked baby is pornography (posing innocently), God help us all because that is how we all come into this world and it means all deliverers of newborns are sex workers, which is absurd. Now, there may be consent issues, and the photographer should have gotten a release from the parents of the child, and whatever tort is pertinent to that he might have a point, but I think the statute of limitations has run out, notwithstanding the fact that no one would even know the photo was of Spencer Elden had he not sued and made a big stink about it, so what right does he have, therefore, to even believe he was 'injured' or is he just trying to glom on to some 15 minute of fame and make a buck of the Kurt Cobain estate?

Here is a shot of him in the same pose as an adult, and he has 'nevermind' tattooed on his chest. So much for 'invasion of privacy' he's after fame in this shot.

https://nypost.com/2016/09/23/nirvana-baby-recreates-iconic-album-cover-25-years-later/

And, according to the article, Elden originally wanted to shoot it nude.

“I said to the photographer, ‘Let’s do it naked.’ But he thought that would be weird, so I wore my swim shorts,” said Elden...

What do you think? Does a baby naked in a swimming pool have a 'reasonable expectation of privacy"? I think, perhaps, since a lot of folks profited off the album, and clearly he did not consent to the photo (children cannot give consent) and if the claim that his parents did not consent, then perhaps he is due a royalty, I don't know. But, that's about it. And, there is at least one lawyer in the peanut gallery, care to chime in?

Here (video below thelink) a lawyer gives her take on the lawsuit.

https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/nirvana-lawsuit.pdf

https://www.youtube.com/live/-ePwO-XYy2Y

 

It sounds like a money grab. I can't blame him for trying though. I've seen way dumber lawsuits. I should follow the case though. I have this album and if they deem it as some kind of child porn then i'll have to dispose of it.

 

Pathetic is what this is. This money grab will have about the longevity of a piece of ice remaining solid on my porch today, maybe a minute or two longer.....

 

This is old news.

He was so mortified about it that he's now told everyone that it was him when no one had a clue before.

 

I believe the lawsuit has already been thrown out or withdrawn.

 

I think he's just being a big baby!

 

If you want to be forgotten as the baby in the photo then file a multi-million dollar lawsuit and get yourself reposted all over the internet. Yah sure, that's the ticket all right.

 

Is this the lawsuit from last September that got dismissed?

 

Yes I heard about this.... Some years ago

 

if that is pornography this culture is doomed, though i admit the video of courtney love's arrest for child pornography would be ratings gold.

if the releases and parental paperwork is in order, this is dismissed,.