[arista]

[Spencer Elden, the man who was photographed
as a baby on the album cover for Nirvana's Nevermind,
is suing the band alleging sexual exploitation.
The cover depicts Elden as a four-month-old
in a swimming pool, grasping for a dollar bill
that's being dangled in front of him on
a fishing line.
Now 30, Elden says his parents never
signed a release authorising the use
of his image on the album.
He also alleges the nude image
constitutes child pornography.



[Elden has recreated the album cover several times
as a teenager and adult - always wearing swimming trunks - to mark
Nevermind's 10th, 20th and 25th anniversaries.]


Sounds like Greedy Lawyers

["It's hard not to get upset when you hear how much
money was involved," he continued. "[When] I go to a
baseball game and think about it: 'Man, everybody at
this baseball game has
probably seen my little baby penis,'
I feel like I got part of my human rights revoked."]



His parents are at fault
They were in charge not him.

[Oliver_W]

Honestly it does sound like money-grubbing tbh. He's living up to that album cover, for sure He never had a problem with it until now

That said, maybe the photograph shouldn't have been so "exposing" when the person can't consent.

[arista]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

Honestly it does sound like money-grubbing tbh. He's living up to that album cover, for sure He never had a problem with it until now

That said, maybe the photograph shouldn't have been so "exposing" when the person can't consent.

Yes Greedy lawyers
advising the fella,


Its Pathetic
as his Parents did it
not him as NAKED baby

[Christmas Dynasnow]

he has obviously been targetted by an opportunistic legal

[Cherry Christmas]

so if he had a swimming togs on the original picture there would be no case?

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Cherie

so if he had a swimming togs on the original picture there would be no case?

The main case will be the use of his image over several decades with (supposedly) no release signed but "embarrassment" could be used to bolster the case, I imagine.

[Cherry Christmas]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

The main case will be the use of his image over several decades with (supposedly) no release signed but "embarrassment" could be used to bolster the case, I imagine.

if he were embarrassed surely he wouldn't have recreated it

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Cherie

if he were embarrassed surely he wouldn't have recreated it

That part surely must be a sticking point, yes... also (assuming it's real) he has a massive "Nevermind" tattoo across his chest, and he must have had that done in adulthood. I'm not saying he can't have changed his mind and started to take issue with it as he's gotten older - obviously people's worldviews and thoughts about their childhood can change over time - but at the very least, it indicates that he wasn't embarrassed about it as a teenager and was leaning into it. For example I think it's unlikely that he could claim to have been bullied about it at school? Would be bizarre for him to then go and get a tattoo...

All of that said, it is such an iconic album cover, and... well... it is him in the picture. I think there's a good argument that he deserves a little payday for it . Nirvana is worth hundreds of millions of $, and Nevermind is by far their most well known album, so IMO recognising that he deserves a li'l slice of the pie is the right thing to do.

[arista]

TS they have paid him before
when they had Celebrations of it
Loads of times.

[bots]

consent rests with the parent at that age, his consent wasn't required. It's obviously a grab for cash

He could attempt to sue his parents, but they probably don't have the same wad of cash

[user104658]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

consent rests with the parent at that age, his consent wasn't required.

Legal obligation and moral obligation aren't necessarily the same thing. In fact, they rarely are...

[Marsh.]

Clearly, he just feels he wants in on some of the cash. A shame that he's going down the "IT'S PRACTICALLY CHILD PORN!" route though.

[arista]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Clearly, he just feels he wants in on some of the cash. A shame that he's going down the "IT'S PRACTICALLY CHILD PORN!" route though.

The Lawyers giving him, the Angle
they want their Cut

[Rustic bauble]

Pathetic....his parents obviously gave permission at the time. He needs to hold his grievances with them.

[arista]

Originally Posted by rusticgal

Pathetic....his parents obviously gave permission at the time. He needs to hold his grievances with them.

Yes, the Real Logic
behind this
Wise rusticgal

[ChristmasNeeve]

Originally Posted by rusticgal

Pathetic....his parents obviously gave permission at the time. He needs to hold his grievances with them.

Not sure what my opinion on this one is. I'm a huge Nirvana fan however I still kind of see where this guy is coming from. On the one hand yes his parents "sold him" but on the other should babies or children be able to be bought in this way? I think I read somewhere that the Father claims he was told that his son's penis would be covered in it, I'm not sure how true that is though

[arista]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Not sure what my opinion on this one is. I'm a huge Nirvana fan however I still kind of see where this guy is coming from. On the one hand yes his parents "sold him" but on the other should babies or children be able to be bought in this way? I think I read somewhere that the Father claims he was told that his son's penis would be covered in it, I'm not sure how true that is though

The parents did not sign the release (reported in the i paper)
hence, the Lad getting paid 2 or 3 times already
(Nevermind's 10th, 20th and 25th anniversaries.)

[Tom4784]

Deleted Post