Spencer Elden, known as “Nirvana’s baby”, lost his second lawsuit in Los Angeles, where he accused the band Nirvana of child pornography for showing him naked, as a child, on the cover of the 1991 album “Nevermind”.
He had already lost a case after a judge dismissed his first case for procedural flaws. And now he’s seen his second case dropped because it was a waste of time. Literally, she wasted a lot of time before filing a complaint.
In a ruling on Friday (Sept. 2), District Judge Fernando Olguin said Elden had waited decades to claim the band had sexually exploited him and ordered him to dismiss the case because the legal deadline to file a complaint has expired.
Elden, now 31, filed a complaint in the second half of 2021 claiming that neither he nor his parents authorized the use of his image, “much less for the commercial exploitation of his person with child pornography images”.
The famous Nirvana album cover portrays Elden underwater in a swimming pool with her genitals exposed, swimming towards a hook with a dollar bill.
The image is generally understood as a critique of capitalism and has never generated another understanding, as evidenced by the absence of conservative protests against its sale in record stores. Non-sexualized images of naked children are not considered child pornography under US law.
However, Robert Y. Lewis, Elden’s attorney, believed he could win the case thanks to an unusual interpretation of the image. He claimed that the photo crossed the line because the inclusion of money on a hook makes the child look “like a prostitute”.
Targets of the cause included surviving Nirvana members Dave Grohl and Krist Novoselic, the band’s first drummer Chad Channing (who left Nirvana a year before “Nevermind”), Kurt Cobain’s widow Courtney Love, Guy Oseary and Heather Parry , who are the managers of the Cobain estate, photographer Kirk Weddle, in charge of the click, art director Robert Fisher and several existing or defunct record labels that have released or distributed the album over the past three decades.
In their defense, the musicians argued for a lack of merit. Lawyers have shown that if Elden’s theory were legitimate, anyone with a copy of the record would be guilty of possessing child pornography, for example. Furthermore, they pointed out that, until recently, the young man enjoyed acquired notoriety as a “child of Nirvana”.
“He re-enacted the photograph many times; he tattooed the album title on his chest; he appeared on a talk show wearing a naked jumpsuit and parodied himself; he signed copies of the album cover to sell on eBay; and he used his reputation for trying to bring women closer “, reads the text of the legal response to the original case.
Source: Terra
Emily Jhon is a product and service reviewer at Gossipify, known for her honest evaluations and thorough analysis. With a background in marketing and consumer research, she offers valuable insights to readers. She has been writing for Gossipify for several years and has a degree in Marketing and Consumer Research from the University of Oxford.
