Jump to content

Nirvana is being sued for child p****graphy after 30 years

Recommended Posts

Spencer Elden is suing the band for child ***ual exploitation, saying he was unable to consent to having his image used for the iconic 1991 album

Nirvana’s surviving members and the estate of Kurt Cobain have been sued by Spencer Elden, who appeared as a baby on the cover of 1991’s Nevermind. Elden claims the band violated federal child ****ography statutes and argues child ***ual exploitation, TMZ reports and documents viewed by Pitchfork confirm. Pitchfork has reached out to Nirvana’s representatives for comment.

In a lawsuit that also named photographer Kirk Weddle and the labels behind the album’s release, Elden claims he has suffered “lifelong damages” and says his legal guardians never signed a release “authorizing the use of any images of Spencer or of his likeness, and certainly not of commercial child ****ography depicting him.” He’s also suing for distribution of private ***ually explicit materials, negligence, and what’s described as a “s** trafficking venture” where Elden “was forced to engage in commercial ***ual acts while under the age of 18 years old.”

Elden is seeking damages, attorney fees, an injunction to prohibit all parties “from continuing to engage in the unlawful acts and practices described herein,” and a trial by jury.

“The permanent harm he has proximately suffered includes but is not limited to extreme and permanent emotional distress with physical manifestations, interference with his normal development and educational progress, lifelong loss of income earning capacity, loss of past and future wages, past and future expenses for medical and psychological treatment, loss of enjoyment of life, and other losses to be described and proven at trial of this matter,” the lawsuit states.

Weddle was a friend of Elden’s father Rick, which is how young Spencer ended up on the album cover. “[Weddle] calls us up and was like, ‘Hey Rick, wanna make 200 bucks and throw your kid in the drink,’” Rick told NPR in 2008. “I was like, ‘What's up?’ And he’s like, ‘Well, I’m shooting kids all this week, why don’t you meet me at the Rose Bowl, throw your kid in the drink?’ And we just had a big party at the pool, and no one had any idea what was going on!” Spencer was reportedly sent a platinum copy of Nevermind and a teddy bear by Geffen Records in 1991.

Elden recreated the image multiple times over the years and had the word “Nevermind” tattooed on his chest, but in a 2016 interview with GQ Australia, Elden revealed that he had recently become unhappy about the Nevermind artwork. “It’s ****ed up,” he said. “I’m pissed off about it, to be honest.”  

"For the album's 10th, 17th and 25th anniversaries, Elden recreated the front cover shot for photographers. He wanted to do the 25th anniversary shoot nude but the photographer preferred that he wore swim shorts."





The Nirvana baby, now 17, recreates iconic 'Nevermind' photo | EW.com

Baby From Nirvana's Album Cover Recreates Iconic Photograph 25 Years Later  | Bored Panda


"In the past you’ve said it was cool. When did that change? 


Just a few months ago, when
 I was reaching out to Nirvana to see if they wanted to be part of my art show. I was getting referred to their managers and their lawyers. Why am I still on their cover if
I’m not that big of a deal?


Why’d you reach out to them? 


I was trying to do an art show with the photographer who took the picture. I was asking if they wanted to put a piece of art in the ****ing thing. "




So he is suing them for not coming for his show....


The irony of a person chasing a bill as a baby and 30 yrs after- still chasing that bill I guess



  • Haha 1
Link to comment

I kinda agree in this.

As a parent you must be F***ed up to let your child be naked on an album's cover by such a big band you know milions of people would buy.

Your naked son is literally on the shelve of milions of people. Probably including s.x offenders...

WHAT parent would like money for their child to be naked on a cover? Sorry but this album's cover has always been problematic imo.

  • Like 6
Link to comment

I can understand why it makes him uncomfortable that millions of people have a picture of him naked even if he was a baby. My parents have pictures of me as a kid (naked) and it started to bother me at some point and I asked them to give them to me because I don't want them or anyone else looking at them anymore. 



How on earth did that picture harm him in his development , in his career etc? Noone knows who he is. Noone knows his name. And he doesn't look like that baby anymore so noone will recognise him. I would understand if he asked for the picture not to be used anymore and for some damages but I think he is going too far.


Having said that.. as a mom I can't understand why people would want their baby to be naked in millions of ppls homes. It's sick. I don't even let my daughter run around naked on the beach cos you never know if a ped****e is around to take pics on his phone. 


  • Like 4
Link to comment
18 minutes ago, kdub87 said:

I disagree wholeheartedly. I don’t see how anyone with a normal mind can look at such a picture and see it as $exual. It’s art, and the scene isn’t anything to do with $ex nor is it remotely suggestive of it. 

If I’m honest, I feel like anyone that looks at a picture like this and feels that it’s arousing or suggestive should probably seek therapy or self reflect on why they are $exualizing pictures of kids in their mind. I can’t say such thoughts would EVER enter my mind when looking at a naked baby. My nana had a picture of me as a baby naked in the garden above her fireplace, I’m not gonna sue her for child ****ography :madonna_weird_alien_cuckoo_nuts:

This guys out for a pay day, his claims are absolute nonsense. 

Pedophiles see it as ***ual. It doesn't matter if you don't. They will **** off to STH like that. Would you be okay to some sick ******* jerking off to a pic of your baby? Or you as a baby? Yes sure they should seek therapy but most probably they won't because they're fine with their sick mind.

  • Love 2
  • Like 4
Link to comment

The picture isn’t ***ual but it’s still wrong simply for the fact that it’s public. Naked babies/children shouldn’t be out like that. The band could have censored the photo and it wouldn’t be as bad. Suing now after seemingly embracing it all these years does come off as a money grab though. Unless all of the attempts to embrace it were to try and make it feel ok like he approved of it in his own mind since he never had a choice? 

  • Like 2
Link to comment

There’s an old move from the 90s where the opening intro scene as the credits roll shows a completely naked baby being tossed up in the air multiple times in slow motion. At one point you do see his parts lol and that was also not ****ographic in nature. He’s got no case. And he admits that he’s just salty that the band didn’t give him any attention or clout

  • Like 3
Link to comment

Leave a comment!

Not so fast! Did you know you can post now and register later? If you are already a member of Exhale, sign in here and start posting!
If you are not logged in, your post will need to be manually approved by an Exhale moderator before it's visible to everyone.

Tap to reply!

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...

We noticed you're using an ad blocker  :ehum_britney_um_unsure_confused_what:

Thanks for visiting Exhale! Your support is greatly appreciated 💜  

Exhale survives through advertising revenue. Please, disable your ad block extension to help us and continue browsing Exhale. 🙏

I've disabled ad block