marylander1940 Posted August 25, 2021 Share Posted August 25, 2021 'Nevermind' cover baby Spencer Elden sues Nirvana over 'child pornography' (nypost.com) OP note: Idiotic, he's just trying to get some cash and attention/fame... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloKyle Posted August 25, 2021 Share Posted August 25, 2021 I just read about this. I don't know how this case is going to go. I'm sure if he was getting royalties, which he says he has never gotten anything besides the $200 his parents got for the photo, he wouldn't be saying a word. I lean towards he is just trying to make some money. But if the judge does rule eventually it's child porn then technically someone could get arrested and charged for it if law enforcement found it in your house. I remember this happened with Brent Corrigan's first porno "Every Poolboy's Dream". He was underage at the time of filming so it was strongly urged to dispose of any copies of it. soloyo215 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marylander1940 Posted August 25, 2021 Author Share Posted August 25, 2021 3 minutes ago, BuffaloKyle said: I just read about this. I don't know how this case is going to go. I'm sure if he was getting royalties, which he says he has never gotten anything besides the $200 his parents got for the photo, he wouldn't be saying a word. I lean towards he is just trying to make some money. But if the judge does rule eventually it's child porn then technically someone could get arrested and charged for it if law enforcement found it in your house. I remember this happened with Brent Corrigan's first porno "Every Poolboy's Dream". He was underage at the time of filming so it was strongly urged to dispose of any copies of it. I'm also sure his parents signed for him and had the right to do it. Besides if it wasn't for his tattoo who would recognize him as that baby so many years ago? If the judge decides that's porno... who's going to be safe? Naked pics/paintings of babies are all over the place. NJF 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloKyle Posted August 25, 2021 Share Posted August 25, 2021 4 minutes ago, marylander1940 said: I'm also sure his parents signed for him and had the right to do it. Besides if it wasn't for his tattoo who would recognize him as that baby so many years ago? If the judge decides that's porno... who's going to be safe? Naked pics/paintings of babies are all over the place. The one article I read stated that there is some question now on whether his parents actually did sign off on it. And any naked pic of a minor is not child porn unless it is sexualized in some way which is what Spencer is saying by having him going for the dollar bill on a hook in the picture. That he is being portrayed then as a sex worker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maninsoma Posted August 25, 2021 Share Posted August 25, 2021 Is it kiddy porn? Not for me to determine. I never "got" the album cover, though; I've always felt it was, at best, in poor taste and that there was no reason to have a naked baby on the album cover. If Nirvana wanted a naked baby on their album cover maybe one of them could have found a photo of himself as a baby that could have been used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+ Lucky Posted August 26, 2021 Share Posted August 26, 2021 This lawsuit seems to be a dead end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+ RJD Posted August 26, 2021 Share Posted August 26, 2021 I think the only thing he has going in his favor is that, according to the news reports I've read, his parents never signed a release, but were paid $200. Legally, does accepting payment without signing a release qualify as an implicit release of ownership? If it's not considered a release, does his suit have merit on the grounds that he would still own the image and has not been adequately compensated given the success of the album? His child porn claim is ridiculous because every snapshot any parent has ever taken of their infant in the bathtub would be guilty of the same crime. His assertion that chasing the dollar bill makes him a sex worker is equally ludicrous. His inclusion of Chad Channing, the original Nirvana drummer who left the band before the album was recorded, depicts him as a money-hungry out-of-work starving artist trying to get a pay day. If the lack of release turns out to be a valid legal issue, he could've pursued compensation without making himself a national joke. MikeBiDude, + FreshFluff, HotWhiteThirties and 1 other 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rustyrex Posted August 28, 2021 Share Posted August 28, 2021 Yeah I saw this and figured he’s doing some fundraising, must need the cash bad enough. He has already done reshoots of the same picture through the years and there is video of him being okay with being the iconic cover of an album that changed the fundamentals of rock and roll. I always thought the pic was interpreted to be that we are all chasing the dollar the moment we are born. There are worse album covers that do exploit others…most of the time it’s women. To Live Crews album cover was totally a sexual. We’ll see what happens. In court justice is served only if you have enough money to afford it and an attorney that is brilliant/conniving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wsc Posted August 28, 2021 Share Posted August 28, 2021 With Rudi Giuliani's law license suspended and Sidney Powell sanctioned by a judge, how did this money-grubbing moron find lawyers sleazy and stupid enough to take his ridiculous case? Lack of a formal release by his parents, if true, is offset by the payment they accepted, and his subsequent re-creation of the image in his later years -presumably for either profit or self-promotion, or both - are reasonably clear indications of his approbation and should largely nullify any legitimacy that might have been attached to his claim. The pornography characterization of the photo of a naked baby is beyond ludicrous, absent any form of sexual act or innuendo. He might, however, seek relief under some provision of the ADA, as he is clearly not in full possession of all his faculties. caliguy and + ButchAtl 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BonVivant Posted August 29, 2021 Share Posted August 29, 2021 Baby (now grown up) wants 💰. Pay baby ( no release ever signed ) - simple. Negotiate add settle. Simple. marylander1940 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bostonman Posted August 30, 2021 Share Posted August 30, 2021 From what I've read and seen, it seems that he all of a sudden decided the album cover was "porn" after having supported the cover openly for many years. I would agree that he's just trying to get attention - and money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloKyle Posted January 4, 2022 Share Posted January 4, 2022 https://variety.com/2022/music/news/nirvana-baby-nevermind-lawsuit-dismissed-1235146354/ The lawsuit was just dismissed yesterday but it was due to Elden not responding in time to the defense's motion to dismiss. So he has until Jan. 13 to refile his case otherwise it's over for good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+ Tygerscent Posted January 4, 2022 Share Posted January 4, 2022 (edited) Technically, the Sistine Chapel is filled with naked babies and can be considered kiddy porn~ “Under federal law, any visual portrayals of sexually explicit behavior involving a minor are considered child pornography. ... Sexual activity is not needed in the image to be considered pornography. The images may contain a nude picture of a child that is deemed sexually suggestive and be considered illegal.” (https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/what-legally-makes-it-child-pornography-38082) So, was no consent form signed for using the image~? Has he addressed this with his parents or whoever provided and released the image to be posted~? Additionally, any adult that’s changed a babies diapers and has cleaned it up has wiped it’s privy bits and seen their privy bits~ Are they all “kiddy fiddlers”~? The point being, what was the intention of the image~? I guess the court would have to prove that the image and intent of using it was “sexually suggestive” and that the crime is not in the mind of Elden himself who views it as such~ Edited January 4, 2022 by Tygerscent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marylander1940 Posted December 22, 2023 Author Share Posted December 22, 2023 On 8/26/2021 at 9:02 AM, Lucky said: This lawsuit seems to be a dead end. Status of limitations and kids don't mix... besides it's a money grab or a way to seek for fame. Nirvana Nevermind Cover Baby's Child Pornography Lawsuit Isn't Barred by Statute of Limitations, REASON.COM the Ninth Circuit rules, though expressly noting that "The question whether the Nevermind album cover meets the definition of child pornography is not at issue in this... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samhexum Posted December 22, 2023 Share Posted December 22, 2023 thomas, pubic_assistance and marylander1940 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BonVivant Posted December 22, 2023 Share Posted December 22, 2023 I remember when the album came out. I bought it. I played it. Listened to it many times. Amazing music. NO ONE BACK THEN viewed it as porn. BACK THEN lil babies were lil babies. That’s it. People these days are just ridiculous. The legal standard is “you know it when you see it.” It ain’t porn. pubic_assistance, thomas, marylander1940 and 1 other 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloKyle Posted December 22, 2023 Share Posted December 22, 2023 I do wonder why the band was cool with that as their cover. Honestly if someone said how about for your album cover a naked baby. 🤨 pubic_assistance 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spidir Posted December 22, 2023 Share Posted December 22, 2023 18 minutes ago, BuffaloKyle said: I do wonder why the band was cool with that as their cover. Honestly if someone said how about for your album cover a naked baby. 🤨 Nirvana's Nevermind cover almost looked completely different | CBC Radio WWW.CBC.CA Before coming up with the dangling dollar bill, the grunge band had a few other ideas. pubic_assistance and marylander1940 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BonVivant Posted December 23, 2023 Share Posted December 23, 2023 3 hours ago, BuffaloKyle said: I do wonder why the band was cool with that as their cover. Honestly if someone said how about for your album cover a naked baby. 🤨 Cause the cover is cool!!l: baby chasing money while in a pool! It can have lots of symbolism of meaning. pubic_assistance 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marylander1940 Posted December 23, 2023 Author Share Posted December 23, 2023 (edited) 4 hours ago, BuffaloKyle said: I do wonder why the band was cool with that as their cover. Honestly if someone said how about for your album cover a naked baby. 🤨 It was unusual, iconic, artistic, and certainly controversial although as pointed by others no one could imagine one day it would call child pornography! Let's remember the naked baby was swimming trying to catch a dollar bill. Greed, capitalism from birth, is everything for sale, etc. many interpretations were said about it. Kurt Cobain's suicide is something everyone remembers from the 90's as much as Tonya Harding, OJ, an impeachment over lying about a blow job, etc. What's the next thing to be banned? Edited December 23, 2023 by marylander1940 BonVivant, pubic_assistance and thomas 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pubic_assistance Posted December 23, 2023 Share Posted December 23, 2023 11 hours ago, marylander1940 said: the naked baby was swimming trying to catch a dollar bill. Greed, capitalism from birth, is everything for sale, etc. many interpretations were said about it. Thank you. Rather sad that this powerful imagery is lost on some people. The world is dumbing-down at an alarming rate. BonVivant, + Coolwave35, marylander1940 and 1 other 1 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marylander1940 Posted December 23, 2023 Author Share Posted December 23, 2023 1 hour ago, pubic_assistance said: Thank you. Rather sad that this powerful imagery is lost on some people. The world is dumbing-down at an alarming rate. Besides back then there was no social media or widespread internet, if something was n the news most folks would talk about it and even if it happened in March, it would be one of the top memorable moments of the year. Now we have a gold fish memory and we live in our iPhones with an algorithm only telling what it thinks we want to see. BonVivant and pubic_assistance 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ali Gator Posted December 23, 2023 Share Posted December 23, 2023 Most important question - can we see Spencer Elden's penis today, at the age of 32 ? Please ? CuriousByNature, marylander1940, soloyo215 and 2 others 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soloyo215 Posted December 23, 2023 Share Posted December 23, 2023 If that's child pornography, I'm the reencarnation of the Mother Theresa. He's either looking for attention, money, both, or needs some therapy. Just signs of the times we're living. marylander1940 and pubic_assistance 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now