Child porn suit - Baby on 'Nevermind' album cover
auntblabby
Veteran
Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 113,725
Location: the island of defective toy santas
ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,454
Location: Long Island, New York
‘Nevermind’ baby sues Nirvana again
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.
_________________
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity
It is Autism Acceptance Month
“My autism is not a superpower. It also isn’t some kind of god-forsaken, endless fountain of suffering inflicted on my family. It’s just part of who I am as a person”. - Sara Luterman
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.
_________________
AQ: 27 Diagnosis:High functioning (just on the cusp of normal.) IQ:131 (somewhat inflated result but ego-flattering) DNA:XY Location: UK. Eyes: Blue. Hair: Brown. Height:6'1 Celebrity I most resemble: Tom hardy. Favorite Band: The Doors. Personality: uhhm ....(what can i say...we asd people are strange)
Last edited by theprisoner on 13 Jan 2022, 8:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
auntblabby
Veteran
Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 113,725
Location: the island of defective toy santas
He will probably be mad that a greatly modified image is being used for a comic book cover this month. Next he will want money from the artist, since he did not authorize it.
http://www.comiccollectorlive.com/item/ ... rgin-Cover
I actively collect Evil Ernie comics, so a copy of that variant is already in my set.
auntblabby
Veteran
Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 113,725
Location: the island of defective toy santas
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.
_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson
His motivation is $$
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,469
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
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.
_________________
We won't go back.
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.
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,469
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
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 suppose I could see that, but the fact he's recreated the image multiple times seems to imply he is probably mentally ok with it. And just for the vast majority of people they will just see a baby, nothing sexual about it...I figure maybe he's having millenial struggles and just wants to see if he could get some money if he claims its given him some problems and doesn't really feel mentally tramatized by the album cover. I could be wrong that is just kind of what it looks like to me which in that case I wouldn't even blame him...I figure whoever is now in charge of Nirvanas material probably has pleanty of money so why not see if you could get a little chunk of it, if you were used technically without giving consent for an album image, cause he was a baby at the time.
_________________
We won't go back.
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,469
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
well yeah, i figure it's more about money he could maybe get for being used in that picture, rather than the guy photographed suddenly thinking its inappropriate after making many redos of the picture(which seems to impy if anything he enjoyed the photograph because of how many times he recreated it. I am not questioning that maybe he deserves some money due to his likeness being used on an album cover....But I don't buy the bit that it would have 'traumatized' him.
Maybe it is more he rightfully realizes if his image was used, well he should probably get something out of it...even if he was a baby at the time cause they still used his image. I just think that is the direction he should have gone in...is that he was due some compensation because his picture was used. But trying to present it as the image being porn is just kind of nonsense.
_________________
We won't go back.
Similar Topics | |
---|---|
What was the last album you listened to? |
20 Apr 2024, 10:12 am |
Luke Comb's 2023 cover of Fast Car by Tracy Chapman |
08 Apr 2024, 6:10 pm |
Trudeau slams Poilievre over age veification for porn |
26 Feb 2024, 11:59 am |
Is G4 MLP a baby show? |
20 Apr 2024, 1:11 pm |