To date, the album has sold more than 30 million copies, according to the complaint, which also claims neither Elden nor his parents ever signed a release authorizing his images. And no one knew what it was going to become." We'll just go down to the pool and throw him (in) and that'll be it,' " Elden recalled. He was friends with Elden's parents and asked if their 4-month-old baby could be part of the shoot. Photographer Kirk Weddle, who is named as a defendant in the lawsuit along with graphic designer Robert Fisher, was tasked with shooting the cover photo for what would become Nirvana's breakthrough album. He spoke positively of the cover a year prior, speaking in 2015 to USA TODAY at Seattle's Museum of Pop Culture, which displayed the "Nevermind" album cover in an exhibit titled "Nirvana: Taking Punk to the Masses." In 2016, he told the New York Post he volunteered to do his latest iteration of the cover naked, but the photographer "thought that would be weird." 'Nevermind' 25th anniversary: Ranking the songs on Nirvana's classic albumĮlden previously recreated the cover to celebrate the 15th and 25th anniversaries of the album's release. dollar bill on a fishhook just out of his reach. Interview: 'Smells Like Teen Spirit' at 30: Dave Grohl recalls 'bananas' first time Nirvana played it live ArtworkEdit The album cover shows a naked baby boy swimming underwater with a U.S. "Spencer's image constitutes child pornography and each of the Nirvana Defendants robbed our client of his dignity and privacy." A California judge on Monday tossed a lawsuit filed against Nirvana by the man who appeared as a naked baby on the cover of their breakthrough album Nevermind. "This unprecedented album cover is perhaps the first and only time a child's full-frontal nudity has been used to sell a product," Elden's attorneys said in a statement. The reopened and amended lawsuit, filed Wednesday, includes new "images and materials which reveal the 'Nevermind' creators' deliberate choices to commercialize and exploit the sexually explicit photo lasciviously depicting Spencer's genitals," Elden's attorneys said in a press release obtained by USA TODAY. District Court in August, Elden's legal team was granted "one last opportunity" to file an amended version by Thursday. 4 to dismiss Elden's child pornography lawsuit, first filed in U.S. "The case serves as a warning to those who take intimate images of themselves and others and share them without consent," he concludes.Spencer Elden, the man who appeared on Nirvana's iconic "Nevermind" album cover as a baby, has reignited his legal battle against the seminal grunge band, alleging the image "constitutes child pornography."Īfter a California judge granted a motion Jan. That must surely be foreseeable, and so to use and publish such a photograph is a deliberate act with that risk in mind. "There is a potential argument that to publish a photograph of a baby with genitalia exposed is likely to cause him or her, later in life, at the very least a degree of embarrassment, and at worse distress. READ MORE: Have Matt Damon's critics been too quick to attack over his homophobic slur confession? He continues: "It is clearly understandable how such an image could potentially cause psychological injury. Speaking about his changing views on the photograph, sexual abuse solicitor at Hugh James, Alan Collins, tells Four Nine that "whether Elden or any other victim in such a case can prove they have suffered psychiatric harm after all this time may be a formidable obstacle". Elden has complained about it – but his complaint seems to be around the fact that the album and the band made millions, while his family were only paid $250."
Spencer Elden was photographed nude as an infant for Nirvana's Nevermind album cover (Credit: Alamy) Has Spencer Elden 'missed the boat'?Įxplaining Elden's legal rights, Stephens tells me: "According to the statute of limitations, Elden is allowed three years from his 18th birthday to file a complaint, and to withdraw his consent for its use. Famous for being photographed nude at four-months-old for the 1991 record, Spencer Elden, 30, claims he was too young to give his consent at the time and that the band violated federal child pornography statutes by using the image.Įlden alleges that he has suffered "lifelong damages" due to the cover, including "extreme and permanent emotional distress with physical manifestations", as well as loss of education, financial gain, and "enjoyment of life".Ĭommenting on the case, Mark Stephens, human rights lawyer at Howard Kennedy, tells Four Nine that Elden's claim is "legally far fetched" and that it is likely to be dismissed.