Nirvana sued over "Nevermind" cover photo

I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"], and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.

1964 - Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart

Aside from the content, the article says that the band/label got no releases from the child’s parents. That in itself is a huge problem, and hard to believe a major label would market an album with no releases.

When I bought the record when it came out in the early 90’s, my first thought was “I wonder when the baby in the photo will sue the record company”. Now I know.  I will say the record cover is NOT child porn or any other kind of porn in my opinion.  That is like saying the statue of David is porn. 

Based on the articles, appears to be a not too bright millennial looking for a payout.

I wonder how much the attorney is feeding this guy?

At least in articles, the guy thought he should be " buddies" with the band.

The person in the photo has a name, Spencer Elden and appearing on the cover has had a lasting impact on his life.   This quote from Wikipedia gives some insight into his conflicts:

For the album's 10th, 17th and 25th anniversaries, Elden recreated the front cover shot for photographers. He wanted to do the 25th anniversary shoot nude but the photographer preferred that he wore swim shorts.[47] In 2003 he appeared on the cover of cEvin Key's album The Dragon Experience.[48] In a January 2015 interview with The Guardian, Elden said "I might have one of the most famous penises in the music industry, but no one would ever know that to look at me. Sooner or later, I want to create a print of a real-deal re-enactment shot, completely naked. Why not? I think it would be fun."[49] He told Time magazine in the following year "[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".

yet apparently he has chosen to participate in duplicate covers since…

The person in the photo has a name, Spencer Elden and appearing on the cover has had a lasting impact on his life.

Lasting impact? Right.

Who on this site ever heard his name before today? Who cared?

he is probably broke and looking for a big payout.

If this is child pornography that's a criminal charge.  Have the legal authorities made an arrest?

Maybe he's suing for emotional damage. He grew up with an inferior complex because of his size portrayed ... 

The emotional damage is he identifies as she making the cover a painful reminder of societies oppression of trans yada yada whatever. It wants its cut, okay?

Well look if my weenie was on the cover of one of the most popular and praised albums of all time I’d probably want a cut too. Just saying.

@millercarbon   

So how long have you been working in HR?

The production company/photographer is responsible for getting the release signed, yet I believe all those named in this case can be sued. Really lame on their part, weren't the kid's parents there?

But it seems that he's had years of fun being the cover child. Until he met the lawyer.

It's not a question of pornography....it's a question about royalties.

@stereo5     

"When I bought the record when it came out in the early 90’s, my first thought was “I wonder when the baby in the photo will sue the record company”."    

You are a teenager buying a Nirvana record and your first thought is about someone suing about the image? Hands up for anyone that believes that.

@mapman: Please don't use weenie and cut in the same sentence, okay? ;-)

What a load of fecal matter.   

Pure greed dressed up as moral indignation. This lawsuit is an insult to all the actual sexual abuse and child pornography victems that never got their day in court.
This guy disgusts me.

If the baby on the cover had never told anyone that his name was Spencer Elden, how many here believe that he would have risked been identified as an adult?

Observations made by legal experts
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/does-spencer-elden-the-nevermind-baby-suing-nirvana-for-alleged-...

Why not? Appears to be the deep thinking, intellectual type
https://methodshop.com/wp-content/uploads/8228121144_80030762c3.jpg

Could be affecting his future earning as he climbs the corporate ladder.
Shame on the lawyers.

Perhaps he want's retribution for alway's feeling compelled to explain "shrinkage" a'la George Constanza.

@tony1954,


Yes, I was 40 years old and it is the first thing I thought of. I was not some teenager.  Next time you call me a liar, back it up with real facts.

I think he’s due his share.  It’s a big ask. I don’t expect him get it, but he should be compensated. It’s an iconic image.  

Money grab.

He will circumsional evidence at trial. Too many lawyers. 
 

 Nevermind, his suit is a waste of time.

Laughing...

Wow… I saw something about this and dismissed it as a joke… evidently not. Though it is.

Funny, when I picked up the latest pressing of Never Mind this year, the first thing I thought to myself "Wow Im surprised they didn't edit that picture in todays day and age.

The times they are a changing.

I can’t recall,  was his penis listed in the credits on the back of the album?

🤡🤡

Maybe a little sticker is the solution (like The Beatles Butcher album)?

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS3ji9jHrP18ocqdOpzAYI5T1NBrV8xDNkiOg&usqp=...

DeKay

Jim:

I believe that it was listed in the appendage.

DeKay

The emotional damage is he identifies as she making the cover a painful reminder of societies oppression of trans yada yada whatever.

The irony isn’t lost on me - a guy who complains out of one side of his mouth about being so hurt over name-calling while the other side of the mouth belittles the entire global population who identify as non-binary or another gender. Prejudice has no place on these forums and I’m shocked the moderators feel no need to purge such content. How in any universe can this comment be construed as anything but non-relevant blather that is intended to deploy hate?

Prejudice has no place on these forums and I’m shocked the moderators feel no need to purge such content. How in any universe can this comment be construed as anything but non-relevant blather that is intended to deploy hate?

+1   

Here is one of the lawyers representing this poor soul
https://www.aol.com/entertainment/chris-cuomo-argues-lawyer-representing-071701428.html

Spencer Eldon is an actual young man, and like the rest of us, his emotions may not be consistent or logical. Though I don’t see the image as child pornography, I’m not surprised it’s screwed with his head over the years. Should he get a cut? As a matter of fairness, I think it would be great for the band or record company to make him a nice settlement. It’s not unlike people who donate cell lines for research that yields hugely profitable treatments. Let them share in the rewards.

Trans and nonbinary people are actual humans, too. I’ve met quite a few. Many -- perhaps most -- have suffered considerable hardship, both physical and emotional. If we need to make fun of something, let it be the many absurdities in our own hobby: $8,000 power cords and such.

If he wants his cut, surely some MD can let him know it can still be done?

good, i hope he gets paid out. that's crazy the label never cleared it. messed up

If the Oscar Meyer Co. had a sense of humor they should hire him as a spokesman for their Mini Franks ... 😄

All these years thinking he was circus-sized.

1. The cover is now just shy of 30 years old
2. Why did the parents not take any legal action at the time of release?
3. Why did the parents not take any legal action since the release?
4. Why did the plaintiff not take any legal action at the age of majority?
5. Why did the plaintiff take part in recreations in later years?
6. Why did no other official agency take any form of legal action since the release of the album?
7. Why would the label release the album without being confident it is not what the plaintiff claims it is?
8. Does anyone truly believe the members on Nirvana had nefarious intent when the album cover was created?

On the surface this does seem like an easy target money grab and back channel attempts have failed and now we are in the public. While the estate could fight the case, it would be easier to make a resonable cash payment to make this case go away and to make a substantial donation in support of true victims of the claim the plaintiff makes. In the big picture, the money that would be required in the payouts is chump change.

While I do not discount that the plaintiff may have suffered some to some degree, I agree with others comments and do not believe the cover rises to the level of a pornographic image.

He should be honored to have such a famous weenie much like King David. 

...honored to have the image altered to include his adult ’version’....

But just ’it’.

Not the bulk of him, no.

Let’s see if he thinks that’d maybe be fun, and a great personal advert...or one can hope....;)

The 'Spencers' Keel' cover, with the original on the flip side.....

...with a ’peel off’ fig leaf on both...

...and switched...;)

The kid should get control of himself and upgrade his self-esteem.
Kids these days.....

I bought the album for the music.  The cover almost made me not buy it.  The cover may be iconic, but I doubt it would have turned out that way if the music sucked.

It's problematic if the photo was used without the parents permission or any kind of release, but waiting 30 years to make an issue of it and claiming it's "pornography"... good luck.