Child porn suit - Baby on 'Nevermind' album cover

Post Reply New Topic

The man depicted as a naked baby on Nirvana’s 1991 album “Nevermind” has revived his lawsuit accusing the band of sexually exploiting him, after a U.S. judge dismissed an earlier version of the case.

Spencer Elden, the plaintiff, maintained in an amended complaint filed on Wednesday in Los Angeles that the “lascivious nature of his image” amounted to “child pornography” that helped the band reap tens of millions of dollars at his expense.

Nirvana drummer Dave Grohl and bassist Krist Novoselic; Courtney Love, the widow of Nirvana lead singer Kurt Cobain; several record labels, and photographer Kirk Weddle are among the 10 defendants. Elden is seeking at least $150,000 from each.

Lawyers for the defendants did not immediately respond on Thursday to requests for comment.

Elden filed his amended complaint nine days after U.S. District Judge Fernando Olguin dismissed an earlier version because Elden had not responded to the defendants’ dismissal motion.

The latest complaint includes a declaration from art director Robert Fisher, describing a stock photo he used for a mockup for the “Nevermind” cover that depicted a different baby and did not show his penis.

Elden said the band decided to create its own photo to save money, with Cobain sardonically suggesting that the cover include a warning sticker saying: “If you’re offended by this, you must be a closet pedophile.”

Fisher was dismissed as a defendant last month.

Elden’s lawsuit no longer accuses Nirvana of violating a 2003 federal law against child sex trafficking, after the defendants said that law could not be applied retroactively.

i am wondering why nirvana can't countersue?

This guy is still at it? I wonder if this is a pure money grab, hoping someone will pay him something just to go away, or if he's genuinely convinced himself that he was harmed? I can kind of see it either way, people can convince themselves of some pretty strange things when they put their minds to it.

There are really people out there who could 'get off' on that? That's a level of sicko I can't comprehend... BS lawsuit

In Utero, the follow up to Nevermind also ran into problems. K-mart (or some other big chain store) wouldn't stock it, again due to 'controversial artwork design. Fetuses etc.

That is kind of how I feel...I mean it's a baby, I've always seen a naked baby as well a baby and there is nothing sexual about a naked baby. So idk seeing that image on that album I certainly don't think 'it's pornography!' I think 'oh a baby..why i it reaching for that dollar bill? is this band trying to make some kind of statement? but Idk it just doesn't seem that inappropriate of an image.

I mean to be honest I think that atrocity show(not sure if its still going on) toddlers in tiaras or whatever is much worse. Cause that is actually exposing like basically baby girls to sex appeal when they are far too young for that sort of attention.

I think this dude is using the fact there's 0.001% of males who might be turned on by the image to convince a court it has created trauma for him.

I'm guessing he's trying for an out of court settlement.