#NIRVANA NEVERMIND COVER PHOTO FULL#

Elden’s own conduct long after he was aware of the photo and how it was used, assuming initial reports of his conduct are accurate, including getting a Nirvana-related tattoo and posing repeatedly to recreate the photograph well into his adulthood - and the fact that he has never litigated this in the intervening decades. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, is Mr. Spencer’s parents consented to the photograph at the time - and were paid for it. Third, though the complaint makes a great deal about the lack of a written release, it appears that Mr. Second, the album cover has been generally understood to be a commentary on capitalism rather than a sexual depiction of a baby. This is particularly true of the federal “human trafficking” claim (18 USC section 1595) which is not only a massive overreach here but, in my view, trivializes real human trafficking.

First, artists’ use of images - particularly not explicitly sexual ones - to sell their art, is not the core type of conduct the federal child pornography laws were intended to address. But how likely is it that Spencer Elden could win this case, if it were to go to trial?īryan Cunningham: Predicting what juries may do - particularly in a provocative and emotional case like this - is difficult, and a lot will depend upon the evidence a court allows and how the court instructs the jury on issues like intent and the definitions of material that violates the relevant laws. Yahoo Entertainment: OK, so on the surface, this seems to be a ridiculous lawsuit, at least to laypeople reading about it. (Full disclosure: Spencer Elden’s mother was a friend of Ackerman’s ex-wife, although Ackerman does not recall ever meeting Spencer or either of his parents.) Below, they break down Elden’s claims and the likelihood that he could prevail in a court of law.

#NIRVANA NEVERMIND COVER PHOTO FULL#

This is an issue of consent - something that our client never had the opportunity to give.”īryan Cunningham, of counsel to Los Angeles-based law firm Zweiback, Fiset & Coleman, and Michael Ackerman, a Pasadena, Calif.-based entertainment attorney who has represented record companies, music publishing companies, artists, managers, producers, documentary filmmakers, reality TV participants, and others in negotiation and drafting of contracts and litigation for more 30 years, reviewed Elden’s full complaint and then communicated with Yahoo Entertainment via email to answer the above question. Nirvana’s use of our client’s picture in their album cover is nothing less than child exploitation. If the world could forget about it, then maybe I could forget about it too.” The Marsh Law Firm also released the following statement: “Our client Spencer Elden never had a choice. “I'm just asking the band to do what they should have done 30 years ago and redact my genitals from the image out of respect for my privacy. 'Nirvana exploited me when I was a baby to sell their music, but there is a person behind every image,” Elden said in a statement. … Nirvana used commercial child pornography depicting Spencer as an essential element of a record promotion scheme commonly utilized in the music industry to get attention wherein album covers posed children in a sexually provocative manner to gain notoriety, drive sales, and garner media attention, and critical reviews. Nirvana fans could be forgiven for thinking they were reading The Onion this week when the news broke that Spencer Elden, who as an infant was photographed naked in a swimming pool for Nirvana’s iconic Nevermind album cover, is suing the band, claiming that the famous image constitutes child pornography.Įlden’s representative at the Marsh Law Firm say Elden was “exploited as a child and was never able to give consent when a picture exposing his naked genitals was used on the cover of Nevermind,” and in a statement to Yahoo Entertainment the firm even alleged that the 30 million-selling album’s “commercial success was due to the controversial cover.

Nirvana nevermind cover photo