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......
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
