He’ll probably get a nuisance payout just to make him go away.
Takes all kinds nowadays.

Which reminds me: my dad submitted a photo of my mom sitting on a park bench holding me up as I stood on the ground (in my diapers!) for a scene from Route 66, which they ended up using. He was an editor at Columbia back then. Maybe I can get a lawyer......

All the best,
Nonoise
Post removed 
Thank you for the explanation.   I'm not an attorney, nor do I play one on TV.  :-)
Another interesting angle:  If this is actually adjudicated as child porn then
what about Qobuz (for instance) showing the album cover when you play the album.  Is that distributing child porn?

Regards,
barts

There is no federal statute of limitations on child pornography, meaning the feds can step in at any time after the fact.  Also, federal law does not require any type of sex act, the simple picture of anyone under 18 and graphically naked is enough to satisfy breaking the law.

Furthermore any person who knowingly purchases the image is breaking the law as well.

State laws vary wildly.  Maybe time to buy a white sleeve and pitch the offending one.   LMAO.

Regards,
barts  
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.
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.
The kid should get control of himself and upgrade his self-esteem.
Kids these days.....
...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.....
He should be honored to have such a famous weenie much like King David. 
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.



If the Oscar Meyer Co. had a sense of humor they should hire him as a spokesman for their Mini Franks ... 😄
good, i hope he gets paid out. that's crazy the label never cleared it. messed up
If he wants his cut, surely some MD can let him know it can still be done?
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.
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   
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?
I can’t recall,  was his penis listed in the credits on the back of the album?

🤡🤡
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.
Wow… I saw something about this and dismissed it as a joke… evidently not. Though it is.
Post removed 
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.  
Post removed 
@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.
Perhaps he want's retribution for alway's feeling compelled to explain "shrinkage" a'la George Constanza.
Post removed 
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?
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.

@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.
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.


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.
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?
Maybe he's suing for emotional damage. He grew up with an inferior complex because of his size portrayed ... 
If this is child pornography that's a criminal charge.  Have the legal authorities made an arrest?
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?