Sensitive Nirvana’s ‘Nevermind’ Baby Is Suing The Band For ‘Sexual Exploitation’ (1 Viewer)

[Tickita]

A California man who appeared on the cover of Nirvana’s “Nevermind” album as an infant has filed a lawsuit against the band claiming he was the victim of ch*ld p*rn*gr*phy.
In a complaint filed Tuesday, Spencer Elden accused Nirvana of continuing to benefit from his “commercial sexual exploitation” 30 years after the album’s release.

“Defendants knowingly produced, possessed, and advertised commercial c---- p---------- depicting Spencer, and they knowingly received value in exchange for doing so,” reads the suit, which can be found in full here. “Despite this knowledge, Defendants failed to take reasonable steps to protect Spencer and prevent his widespread sexual exploitation and image trafficking.”

Elsewhere in the suit, Elden takes specific aim at Nirvana frontman Kurt Cobain, who died in 1994 and has been widely credited with having co-conceived the image with art director Robert Fisher.
“Cobain chose the image depicting Spencer—like a sex worker—grabbing for a dollar bill that is positioned dangling from a fishhook in front of his nude body with his penis explicitly displayed,” the suit alleges.
Elden, 30, is seeking at least $150,000 from each of the 15 named defendants ― including surviving Nirvana members Dave Grohl and Krist Novoselic as well as Cobain’s widow, Courtney Love, who remains an executor of his estate. He is also seeking legal fees and other unspecified damages.

Representatives for Love and for Universal Music, which now distributes Nirvana’s albums, did not immediately respond to HuffPost’s requests for comment.

HuffPost

 

[Ahsoka]

Like on one hand yeah it is kind of questionable to have a naked baby for the cover of your album but on the other hand, the guy has recreated the photo so many times that it seems like he wasn’t particularly scared by the experience like he claims he was. I dunno though maybe he was.

 

[lunaria]

that cover always seemed uncomfortably inappropriate to me. regardless of how the image is meant to be interpreted, i agree that it is still exploitative nonetheless. i sympathize with him, i can't imagine how i would feel if this happened to me. i hope he gets the closure he's seeking.

also, i'm saying this as a nirvana fan. please don't kill me

 

[Venomous]

I'm just gonna leave this here and let Spencer Elden speak for himself:

Basically he was cool with it until Nirvana wouldn't help his art career. Then he started seeing it as exploitation. He sounds super bitter that he's famous but not making any money off of it.

It's from this GQ article.

 

[lunaria]

I'm just gonna leave this here and let Spencer Elden speak for himself:

Basically he was cool with it until Nirvana wouldn't help his art career. Then he started seeing it as exploitation. He sounds super bitter that he's famous but not making any money off of it.

It's from this GQ article.

even if he profited from this and is only suing because he's upset that nirvana isn't furthering his career, which it admittedly looks like might be the case, surely what happened is still wrong, no ?? it's still something that seems exploitative for me (i see no valid reason for pictures like that to exist in the first place, but that's beside the point), and having something so vulnerable out there for the world to see can be traumatic, whether someone consciously realizes it or not. sometimes it takes you awhile to see something that happened to you as wrong and as damaging, so it's not strange for someone's perception and opinion of a situation to suddenly change. i obviously don't know his motives, and i'm not trying to defend him, but i don't think that just because he could be potentially doing this out of spite invalidates that it wasn't okay in the first place ... it's not entirely black and white on both sides to me, i guess.

i'm really bad at communicating, sorry if this makes absolutely no sense

 

[Venomous]

even if he profited from this and is only suing because he's upset that nirvana isn't furthering his career, which it admittedly looks like might be the case, surely what happened is still wrong, no ?? it's still something that seems exploitative for me (i see no valid reason for pictures like that to exist in the first place, but that's beside the point), and having something so vulnerable out there for the world to see can be traumatic, whether someone consciously realizes it or not. sometimes it takes you awhile to see something that happened to you as wrong and as damaging, so it's not strange for someone's perception and opinion of a situation to suddenly change. i obviously don't know his motives, and i'm not trying to defend him, but i don't think that just because he could be potentially doing this out of spite invalidates that it wasn't okay in the first place ... it's not entirely black and white on both sides to me, i guess.

i'm really bad at communicating, sorry if this makes absolutely no sense

I'm going with no, because of the way things went.

The photographer paid his family. Spencer Elden himself has posed for multiple recreations of the photo, which he would have had to consent to and implies he was comfortable with his association with the image. Why is it only now that he's calling it sexual exploitation? Also, why is he suing the band and not his parents, who allowed the image to be taken? Also, the image isn't sexual in nature, he's arguing that the dollar bill, added in after the photo was taken, implies sex work because he (infant him) was being offered cash while naked. Do you realize how absurd and money-grubbing this is? There are multiple interviews where he mentions the money made off his image and his jealousy of that. Spencer himself is an artist, the photo taken of him was meant as art, no sexual nature. Do you also think parents who take pictures of their infants in the bathtub are wrong? How about when they show those nude photos to their child's friends/significant others specifically to make them uncomfortable? Under this argument, there should be no infants in any media of any kind because they cannot consent to the use of their image, nude or otherwise.

I'd have no problem if he was just suing for misuse of his image and a cut of the profits over the lack of signed rights to the image, but he's literally only using "sexual exploitation" to elicit an emotional response in the public. He doesn't actually believe he was sexually exploited, just that his parents never signed a waiver and therefore he's entitled to money. It's an absolute slap in the face to actual victims of child sexual exploitation who often never see justice for the images taken of them.

 

[lunaria]

I'm going with no, because of the way things went.

The photographer paid his family. Spencer Elden himself has posed for multiple recreations of the photo, which he would have had to consent to and implies he was comfortable with his association with the image. Why is it only now that he's calling it sexual exploitation? Also, why is he suing the band and not his parents, who allowed the image to be taken? Also, the image isn't sexual in nature, he's arguing that the dollar bill, added in after the photo was taken, implies sex work because he (infant him) was being offered cash while naked. Do you realize how absurd and money-grubbing this is? There are multiple interviews where he mentions the money made off his image and his jealousy of that. Spencer himself is an artist, the photo taken of him was meant as art, no sexual nature. Do you also think parents who take pictures of their infants in the bathtub are wrong? How about when they show those nude photos to their child's friends/significant others specifically to make them uncomfortable? Under this argument, there should be no infants in any media of any kind because they cannot consent to the use of their image, nude or otherwise.

I'd have no problem if he was just suing for misuse of his image and a cut of the profits over the lack of signed rights to the image, but he's literally only using "sexual exploitation" to elicit an emotional response in the public. He doesn't actually believe he was sexually exploited, just that his parents never signed a waiver and therefore he's entitled to money. It's an absolute slap in the face to actual victims of child sexual exploitation who often never see justice for the images taken of them.

to clarify, no, i don't think parents who take pictures of their infants are doing anything immoral. i'm referring to the commercialization of the image to the public.

we obviously are seeing it from entirely different perspectives, and i respect your opinion, so i'll leave my thoughts there. sorry for bothering you, and i sincerely hope that i didn't offend you, as that was not my intention

 

[Venomous]

to clarify, no, i don't think parents who take pictures of their infants are doing anything immoral. i'm referring to the commercialization of the image to the public.

we obviously are seeing it from entirely different perspectives, and i respect your opinion, so i'll leave my thoughts there. sorry for bothering you, and i sincerely hope that i didn't offend you, as that was not my intention

You didn't offend me at all, and I don't mind a good discourse. I just look at things logically and from the legal standpoint, where feelings don't matter.

The issue at hand here is that his parents knew the shoot was for a band's album, and they were paid for the photos. His parents, his legal guardians at the time, consented for his image to be taken. He can feel whatever way he wants about it, legally there was no "sexual exploitation" because there's nothing sexual about a naked baby in a pool, nor was anything sexual ever proposed or implied. As for the commercialization, that's an issue he'd need to take up with his parents and not Nirvana et al, because they gave their consent and legally, they're allowed to.

I suggest reading this article, because even to the guy himself, his dick being seen by the world is more of an afterthought than how unfair it is that he's famous but didn't get any money for it. I don't mind if he wants to get paid, just don't do it by claiming you were sexually exploited when that's untrue.

 

[lunaria]

You didn't offend me at all, and I don't mind a good discourse. I just look at things logically and from the legal standpoint, where feelings don't matter.

The issue at hand here is that his parents knew the shoot was for a band's album, and they were paid for the photos. His parents, his legal guardians at the time, consented for his image to be taken. He can feel whatever way he wants about it, legally there was no "sexual exploitation" because there's nothing sexual about a naked baby in a pool, nor was anything sexual ever proposed or implied. As for the commercialization, that's an issue he'd need to take up with his parents and not Nirvana et al, because they gave their consent and legally, they're allowed to.

I suggest reading this article, because even to the guy himself, his dick being seen by the world is more of an afterthought than how unfair it is that he's famous but didn't get any money for it. I don't mind if he wants to get paid, just don't do it by claiming you were sexually exploited when that's untrue.

good, i'm relieved !! at times, i have a hard time separating feelings from legality and logic, obviously though, i do believe all three can coexist, as long as you don't let your feelings rule you.

in terms of the legality of it, you're likely right. i'm still of the opinion that it's still not morally acceptable. to me, it doesn't matter if it wasn't intended to be s*xual, because that doesn't mean that someone else isn't going to see it as s*xual. having images such as these made public could potentially put a child in danger. even if someone's intentions are artistic and pure, others' intentions aren't always, and i think it's important for that to be acknowledged. i urge people to think about the ramifications of using children's images for art in this manner. you don't have to agree with me, of course, so i'm not trying to convince you, i suppose i just feel rather strongly about it as a csa/exploitation victim, myself, so i feel the need to state my opinion on all of this. thank you very much for being kind and listening to me say my piece, and thank you for the article !!i do agree that his motivations behind this seem bitter, though.

 

[Venomous]

good, i'm relieved !! at times, i have a hard time separating feelings from legality and logic, obviously though, i do believe all three can coexist, as long as you don't let your feelings rule you.

in terms of the legality of it, you're likely right. i'm still of the opinion that it's still not morally acceptable. to me, it doesn't matter if it wasn't intended to be s*xual, because that doesn't mean that someone else isn't going to see it as s*xual. having images such as these made public could potentially put a child in danger. even if someone's intentions are artistic and pure, others' intentions aren't always, and i think it's important for that to be acknowledged. i urge people to think about the ramifications of using children's images for art in this manner. you don't have to agree with me, of course, so i'm not trying to convince you, i suppose i just feel rather strongly about it as a csa/exploitation victim, myself, so i feel the need to state my opinion on all of this. thank you very much for being kind and listening to me say my piece, and thank you for the article !!i do agree that his motivations behind this seem bitter, though.

Everyone can have problems with the feelings bit, we're human, after all!

My issue with the opinion that it's not morally acceptable is that where then, do we draw the line? Any image, theoretically, could be sexual to someone. There are people with all kinds of fetishes, who find things you and I would find innocuous, sexually gratifying. Hands, feet, other random body parts. In the case of children and consent, it gets even more complex. You say commercialization of a nude image of a child, regardless of parental consent and context, is not morally acceptable because someone could find it sexual. Would parents who post naked images of their children online, even if it was just to show relatives a candid family snap, also be subject to the same scrutiny? Child sexual exploitation is a problem, yes, one we really need to fight harder against, but this isn't that, by the definition of what sexual exploitation is. I was a victim of abuse myself, but I see the bigger picture.

Making a dude insecure because the world has seen his dick but he's still broke isn't sexual abuse. I doubt pedos have been buying Nevermind when they can get actual sexual images to suit their fancy so much more easily thanks to the internet. There will always be bad people in this world, there will always be children in this world, and those bad people will find ways to hurt those children if they are determined. Over-policing the media is not going to stop offenders from offending. Saying any naked images of kids shouldn't be published anywhere is a bit like saying women shouldn't wear revealing clothes as to not invite rapists to target them. It doesn't fix the problem, just puts more restrictions and places the blame away from where it truly belongs, on the offenders themselves.

The image itself is incredibly fitting for this situation, as it was meant to represent the struggle we all face, the pressure to chase money from the moment we come into the world. The exact thing Spencer Elden is doing with this lawsuit. Chasing the payday that has seemed out of his reach since he was an infant.

 

[RandAlThor]

Actually yes all full nude baby pics should be off the program. upper half shots would seem to be less or no issue.
but stuff like the si mom and baby topless covers should be gone too, in the sake of the parent never have the right to sign away expletive's pics of their wards.

 

[lunaria]

Everyone can have problems with the feelings bit, we're human, after all!

My issue with the opinion that it's not morally acceptable is that where then, do we draw the line? Any image, theoretically, could be sexual to someone. There are people with all kinds of fetishes, who find things you and I would find innocuous, sexually gratifying. Hands, feet, other random body parts. In the case of children and consent, it gets even more complex. You say commercialization of a nude image of a child, regardless of parental consent and context, is not morally acceptable because someone could find it s*xual. Would parents who post naked images of their children online, even if it was just to show relatives a candid family snap, also be subject to the same scrutiny? Child sexual exploitation is a problem, yes, one we really need to fight harder against, but this isn't that, by the definition of what sexual exploitation is. I was a victim of abuse myself, but I see the bigger picture.

Making a dude insecure because the world has seen his dick but he's still broke isn't sexual abuse. I doubt pedos have been buying Nevermind when they can get actual sexual images to suit their fancy so much more easily thanks to the internet. There will always be bad people in this world, there will always be children in this world, and those bad people will find ways to hurt those children if they are determined. Over-policing the media is not going to stop offenders from offending. Saying any naked images of kids shouldn't be published anywhere is a bit like saying women shouldn't wear revealing clothes as to not invite rapists to target them. It doesn't fix the problem, just puts more restrictions and places the blame away from where it truly belongs, on the offenders themselves.

The image itself is incredibly fitting for this situation, as it was meant to represent the struggle we all face, the pressure to chase money from the moment we come into the world. The exact thing Spencer Elden is doing with this lawsuit. Chasing the payday that has seemed out of his reach since he was an infant.

while i do agree with you that anything could be s*xual, in theory, depending on the person viewing it, you also cannot deny that to most people the completely nude human form is tied with s*xuality more so than things (such as hands) are. it's reckless to me to needlessly show pictures of unclothed minors. even if it fails to fit the definition of s*xual exploitation, nothing will change my mind that it is inappropriate. perhaps that's stubborn of me, but it's something i feel strongly about.

yes, i think it's unethical to post photos online that someone with bad intentions could get their hands on. beyond that, your child can't consent to their image being shared, you have to do that for them. even if they don't end up being s*xualized, they might not want that image to be online for a number of other reasons, included but not limited to feeling embarrassed or seeing it as an invasion of their privacy. (side note, but we constantly tell children about online safety and privacy concerns on the internet. what kind of message are we sending to them by sharing things so personal ? we must model safe behavior. also, children may feel as if their autonomy has been taken away, and that they have no ownership over themselves)

say we don't use images of naked children in the entertainment industry/media/etc. what would the issue be with that ? why is it important to protect this type of content from over-policing ? artistic expression isn't a good argument to me, because it's not worth putting someone at risk for. what is the need for pictures such as this when you could easily use an adult model or censor ? why must children, who can't make the decision to agree to this, be used in art for adult's entertainment when it doesn't benefit them ?

of course the blame lies with the offenders, but that doesn't mean that you shouldn't do everything in your power to protect your child from the possibility of being victimized. it may not fix the problem, but you're not feeding into it that way, either. we shouldn't be making it easier for people to s*xualize our children.

i'm not denying that the image has artistic merit, because i do like the message behind it, i just do not like it in execution for the reasons i've already explained

 

[Ashla_K]

Also, why is he suing the band and not his parents, who allowed the image to be taken?

This is exactly what I thought as soon I saw the news, like why would he even try to sue the band when his own parents gave consent to it in the first place? To me this is beyond ridiculous. Is very clear the intent of the picture was not sexual at all, only the perverted minds will twist something like this.