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

[kfitz421]

50 minutes ago, FreeBritBrit said:

Kurt's dead. He aint rich sis

Bestie, Sorry you didn’t know this but although he is dead he still has an estate full of $$$ 

 

Also Nirvana was actually not a solo project of Kurt Cobain’s, it was a full band that today has fully alive band members a la David Grohl from the Foo Fighters, so he can def sue them 

[Neydelinska Spearsi]

5 minutes ago, kfitz421 said:

Bestie, Sorry you didn’t know this but although he is dead he still has an estate full of $$$ 

 

Also Nirvana was actually not a solo project of Kurt Cobain’s, it was a full band that today has fully alive band members a la David Grohl from the Foo Fighters, so he can def sue them 

IDGAF this case is a  blatant cash grab attempt by prob unemployed attention loving fad

[PokemonSpears]

11 hours ago, FreeBritBrit said:

"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."

 

in any case, shouldn't the record label be the one being sued for printing and distributing the material?

and basically anyone that owns a copy of the album, you know, for possession of such material?  

and any streaming platform that shows the cover

and @Jordan Miller for allowing these pictures on his site   (jk) 

 

I think it would make more sense if she was seeking for some sort of royalties or whatever, but child ****ography? 

[PokemonSpears]

also, if this were to proceed, does this mean that any baby photoshoots that shows the babies' naked bodies, will also be considered ****ography? 

[Neydelinska Spearsi]

7 minutes ago, PokemonSpears said:

also, if this were to proceed, does this mean that any baby photoshoots that shows the babies' naked bodies, will also be considered ****ography? 

YES! All the castles, churches, museums worldwide that have pics and statues of naked angels or babies will be demolished and then fined for owning and displaying CP through the centuries

[MortalMarshmallow]

Dont get why Nirvana thought it would be of great importance to show the baby's wiener. They could have put the baby into small bathing shorts, but there was a reason ("shock value" reason) they did not.

I understand where Spencer is coming from actually, whether it is for money or not of course there is a problem mass producing art with real baby genitals showing. Isn't that obvious?

 

It's not the same as a statue of Cupid/Cherubs etc, this a real person of flesh and blood that is depicted, in flesh and blood. 

 

 

[kdub87]

3 hours ago, MortalMarshmallow said:

Dont get why Nirvana thought it would be of great importance to show the baby's wiener. They could have put the baby into small bathing shorts, but there was a reason ("shock value" reason) they did not.

I understand where Spencer is coming from actually, whether it is for money or not of course there is a problem mass producing art with real baby genitals showing. Isn't that obvious?

 

It's not the same as a statue of Cupid/Cherubs etc, this a real person of flesh and blood that is depicted, in flesh and blood. 

 

 

Its completely dependent on how you interpret it though. I look at that image and see it as an artistic shot for an album cover, who ever sees babies swimming underwater? It’s a novelty, which makes it stand out. 
When I was a kid we’d play in paddling pools naked, some of which were in an album my cousins uploaded to Facebook. I’d be so disturbed if anyone tried to twist those into something sinister.

Making something so innocent seem so corrupt is just more over the top SJW’ing imo. The vast majority of people don’t look at something like this and think ***ual thoughts. It’s just the overly loud minority yet again with their cancel culture fighting invisible battles. 

I want to reiterate, anyone viewing this image and interpreting it in any prnographic or $exually exploitative way rather than a simple art shot, please get help in understanding why that’s where your mind goes, it’s abnormal.

[MortalMarshmallow]

45 minutes ago, kdub87 said:

Its completely dependent on how you interpret it though. I look at that image and see it as an artistic shot for an album cover, who ever sees babies swimming underwater? It’s a novelty, which makes it stand out. 
When I was a kid we’d play in paddling pools naked, some of which were in an album my cousins uploaded to Facebook. I’d be so disturbed if anyone tried to twist those into something sinister.

Making something so innocent seem so corrupt is just more over the top SJW’ing imo. The vast majority of people don’t look at something like this and think ***ual thoughts. It’s just the overly loud minority yet again with their cancel culture fighting invisible battles. 

I want to reiterate, anyone viewing this image and interpreting it in any prnographic or $exually exploitative way rather than a simple art shot, please get help in understanding why that’s where your mind goes, it’s abnormal.

So you are basically calling me a pervert that ***ualizes children, because i am saying it is wrong to expose a child's genitals?

 

Let me just challenge your train of thought here. If i was a photographer and i decided i wanted to take a picture of like ten naked babies sitting side by side and all of them should have their genitals exposed. You think that is innocent art? Also, would it make a difference if the surroundings i took the picture in were either a cradle of flowers, teddies and pacifiers, or a dark chamber? In your logic it wouldn't make a difference right? Because no physical art is wrong, only people's perceptions of the art can be twisted right?

Another question, challenging your logic. If you think it is okay to expose a baby's genitals, do you think it is also okay to take a picture alike of a 3 year old? A 5 year old? A 10 year old? A 13 year old? A 16 year old? Where is the line crossed for you? Because in respects to your logic people are perverted for ***ualizing a child's genital. Meaning you would think it is totally innocent to take naked pictures of a 15 year old child, showing the person's genitals? Am i right? 

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child defines child as "a human being below the age of 18 years 

Whether i find it perverted or not (i am not calling this album cover child ****ography exactly but i understand where Spencer is coming from and no my mind does not wander into thinking the album cover is ***ual but i still dont see the reason for copying a baby's tap for millions of people to look at), there are paedophiles out there who will think certain ways about naked children, whether you do or dont.  

[LeglessJamie]

11 hours 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 

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

There are literally thousands of people who will find this arousing. You'd be surprised.

Anyhow, I would NEVER let my child be naked on something so publicely. To me it's basic parenting to protect your child at all costs.

[MortalMarshmallow]

16 minutes ago, IForgotYouExisted said:

There are literally thousands of people who will find this arousing.

1-4 % of the population is believed to have paedophilic urges. 

We are 7.8 billion people on earth.

1% of that is 78 million people.

Therefore there are anything from 78 million to 312 million people out there who could get turned on by the album cover. 

 

If people are surprised by paedophiles existing, they are literally just completely ignorant of what revolves outside of themselves. 

 

[electricopop]

The things you do for attention and cash.

[jennyj]

Personally, I don't like it as a cover. Artistically it's beautiful... but the parents should have just kept it for themselves instead of using him to sell an album that will be in millions of people's hands.

Also the photographer saying "I'm taking pics of lots of kids today, you wanna throw your kid in the drink and make $200?" sounds gross

BUT on the other hand, he was obviously fine with it all these years as he did those reshoots and even wanted to do one naked... so either something happened to him personally, or he's just pissed they ignored his calls and didn't go to his art show lol.

I don't think he'll win this case unless he gets a strong lawyer, because there's lots of evidence with him being fine with it LOL.

[Neydelinska Spearsi]

32 minutes ago, jennyj said:

Personally, I don't like it as a cover. Artistically it's beautiful... but the parents should have just kept it for themselves instead of using him to sell an album that will be in millions of people's hands.

Also the photographer saying "I'm taking pics of lots of kids today, you wanna throw your kid in the drink and make $200?" sounds gross

BUT on the other hand, he was obviously fine with it all these years as he did those reshoots and even wanted to do one naked... so either something happened to him personally, or he's just pissed they ignored his calls and didn't go to his art show lol.

I don't think he'll win this case unless he gets a strong lawyer, because there's lots of evidence with him being fine with it LOL.

Because the baby they initually wanted to use costed 7500 dollars. This one 200

 

But that says more about the parents who accept only 200 dollars and not negotiate some royalties

[Neydelinska Spearsi]

3 hours ago, MortalMarshmallow said:

So you are basically calling me a pervert that ***ualizes children, because i am saying it is wrong to expose a child's genitals?

 

Let me just challenge your train of thought here. If i was a photographer and i decided i wanted to take a picture of like ten naked babies sitting side by side and all of them should have their genitals exposed. You think that is innocent art? Also, would it make a difference if the surroundings i took the picture in were either a cradle of flowers, teddies and pacifiers, or a dark chamber? In your logic it wouldn't make a difference right? Because no physical art is wrong, only people's perceptions of the art can be twisted right?

Another question, challenging your logic. If you think it is okay to expose a baby's genitals, do you think it is also okay to take a picture alike of a 3 year old? A 5 year old? A 10 year old? A 13 year old? A 16 year old? Where is the line crossed for you? Because in respects to your logic people are perverted for ***ualizing a child's genital. Meaning you would think it is totally innocent to take naked pictures of a 15 year old child, showing the person's genitals? Am i right? 

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child defines child as "a human being below the age of 18 years 

Whether i find it perverted or not (i am not calling this album cover child ****ography exactly but i understand where Spencer is coming from and no my mind does not wander into thinking the album cover is ***ual but i still dont see the reason for copying a baby's tap for millions of people to look at), there are paedophiles out there who will think certain ways about naked children, whether you do or dont.  

Through the years censored editions existed (limited or in countries like saudi arabia. If I was Nirvana label, I'd just replace the current version with any of these:

 

 

tho Saudis Arabia one is....ummmmm.....lemme just post that edition

 

 

 

[Neydelinska Spearsi]

39 minutes ago, jennyj said:

Personally, I don't like it as a cover. Artistically it's beautiful... but the parents should have just kept it for themselves instead of using him to sell an album that will be in millions of people's hands.

Also the photographer saying "I'm taking pics of lots of kids today, you wanna throw your kid in the drink and make $200?" sounds gross

BUT on the other hand, he was obviously fine with it all these years as he did those reshoots and even wanted to do one naked... so either something happened to him personally, or he's just pissed they ignored his calls and didn't go to his art show lol.

I don't think he'll win this case unless he gets a strong lawyer, because there's lots of evidence with him being fine with it LOL.

 

It's NOT his first time suing them but the first lawsuit saw blatantly for the cash

 

September 23, 2016

''Even though Elden has recreated the photo shoot a number of times and has a large tattoo that says “Nevermind” on his chest, he says he hasn’t fully come to terms with being on the album’s cover. “I got a little upset for a bit,” he says. “I was trying to reach out to these people. I never met anybody. I didn’t get a call or email. I just woke up already being a part of this huge project. It’s pretty difficult—you feel like you’re famous for nothing, but you didn’t really do anything but their album.”

Frustrated about never receiving any sort of compensation for Nevermind, Elden recently looked into pursuing legal action against Geffen Records, but was unsuccessful. “It’s hard not to get upset when you hear how much money was involved,” he says. (Nevermind has sold over 30 million copies worldwide.) “[When] I go to a baseball game and think about it: ‘Man, everybody at this baseball game has probably seen my little baby *****,’ I feel like I got part of my human rights revoked,” says Elden.''

 

https://time.com/4499648/nirvana-nevermind-25-baby-spencer-elden/

 

Is it ok to be a super big band and to sell 30 mill copies while the person on ur album got only 200 bucks? (actually his parents not him) NO ITS NOT. They were not some indie local act they were Nirvana

I'd offer a compensation but I'd not **** with this guy and I'd def use either a censored version or I'd do another cover with another baby but make it censored

 

If you read the whole article, you'll see the guy is super pressed he's living with his parents and trying to do some art stuff and Nirvana as a band ''dont care'' about him = he cannot milk them for attention and a career boost

 

BUT that same year he offered to recreate the cover naked and the photographer refused

I do see that situation as him fishing- if the photographer said yes- he would def use it as a court evidence of SA

 

 

 

 

[Malibu.D.Luxx]

Oh my gosh. Some of Y’all are too much in this thread… like… fr. this isn’t even about his baby d on the album cover. If it truly was about that, fine, but this is literally him retaliating because he isn’t being acknowledged in a way he thinks he should be. He had nothing to do with the band’s success and the fact that he has a “don’t you know who I am” kind of attitude really speaks volumes. P.S. shouldn’t he be going after his dad/parents too if he’s going to be doing this? P.S.S. I know Cobain died before most of you were even born, you literally weren’t around for the world in the early 90’s- yeah times change and people probably wouldn’t make the same choices they made back then but if you can’t see that this is a blatant grab for attention/money then idk what to tell you… I mean, he has recreated this photo more than once and even wanted to do it nude 🤷🏼‍♀️ What I can say, is in my entire life, I have NEVER heard ANYONE even close to s.e.x.ualizing this album cover 🤦‍♀️ - that’s not to say pe.dos don’t exist, I’m not naive, but to quote Miz Cracker “This smells like an entirely different plate of food, and I don’t wanna eat it.”

Edit: p.s.s.s. (😂 but for real) some of you keep saying “if this were any other band” or “yeah but this was NIRVANA”- their first album only sold 40k units before this album was released and saw massive commercial success. So no, I don’t think anyone thought OMG, this is Nirvana, millions of people will see this! It doesn’t make the situation any better- but these are the facts, Nirvana was not a huge household name when this decision was made, I mean, their first album didn’t even hit billboard charts until this album was released. #YallAreReaching

[kdub87]

11 hours ago, MortalMarshmallow said:

So you are basically calling me a pervert that ***ualizes children, because i am saying it is wrong to expose a child's genitals?

 

Let me just challenge your train of thought here. If i was a photographer and i decided i wanted to take a picture of like ten naked babies sitting side by side and all of them should have their genitals exposed. You think that is innocent art? Also, would it make a difference if the surroundings i took the picture in were either a cradle of flowers, teddies and pacifiers, or a dark chamber? In your logic it wouldn't make a difference right? Because no physical art is wrong, only people's perceptions of the art can be twisted right?

Another question, challenging your logic. If you think it is okay to expose a baby's genitals, do you think it is also okay to take a picture alike of a 3 year old? A 5 year old? A 10 year old? A 13 year old? A 16 year old? Where is the line crossed for you? Because in respects to your logic people are perverted for ***ualizing a child's genital. Meaning you would think it is totally innocent to take naked pictures of a 15 year old child, showing the person's genitals? Am i right? 

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child defines child as "a human being below the age of 18 years 

Whether i find it perverted or not (i am not calling this album cover child ****ography exactly but i understand where Spencer is coming from and no my mind does not wander into thinking the album cover is ***ual but i still dont see the reason for copying a baby's tap for millions of people to look at), there are paedophiles out there who will think certain ways about naked children, whether you do or dont.  

It was for an album cover though, not some seedy basement shots taken in secret for untoward purposes, therein lies the difference. The intent is clear and the way it’s presented is clear. Taking things wholly out of context can make ANYTHING seem nefarious. 

Unfortunately pedophiles exist, but to suggest that we censor everything and anything that may or may not ‘arouse’ them is impossible. If we were to follow that train of thought, nothing would be left on the table. It’s like saying we can’t have horror movies as it will arouse those with homicidal tendencies, it’s futile. Of course exploitative imagery should be prevented and those possessing it be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, obviously.

I’m not trying to get into arguments over it because I don’t care enough about it as in my mind this is just a petty, shameless cash grab but your comparisons sound a little over the top/sensationalized and very much akin to the unnecessary feigned outrage we see from the cancel culture gang.

Of course taking pictures of pubescent teenagers in a ‘dark chamber’ is nothing like taking a picture of a baby for an album cover and drawing such parallels is disingenuous. I’m not insinuating you’re a pervert at all I don’t know anything about you, but the artists intent is VERY clear here and it goes without saying that context is EVERYTHING. I very much doubt you perceive this image $exually but I also feel your reaction is unwarranted.

Anyway, each to their own! I actually agree that there wasn’t really a need for the babies genitals to be visible and think the edited version with them removed has the same visual impact. However, do I find it offensive or nefarious in nature? Not at all.

 

[kdub87]

10 hours ago, IForgotYouExisted said:

There are literally thousands of people who will find this arousing. You'd be surprised.

Anyhow, I would NEVER let my child be naked on something so publicely. To me it's basic parenting to protect your child at all costs.

There are literally thousands of people who find feet arousing, who find a female bust arousing, blond hair arousing. Is the answer to do away with everything that could cause ***ual attraction? We’d all be walking around in burkas though I bet there’s people that find that arousing too. In which case, let’s just never leave the house lol.

[MortalMarshmallow]

49 minutes ago, kdub87 said:

There are literally thousands of people who find feet arousing, who find a female bust arousing, blond hair arousing. Is the answer to do away with everything that could cause ***ual attraction? We’d all be walking around in burkas though I bet there’s people that find that arousing too. In which case, let’s just never leave the house lol.

Sorry for not answering your answer to me but it was a bit bland. Still you did not answer my questions and a tap is a tap whether the surroundings are water or fire. A tap in a basement is okay if it was put on an album cover you think? And contexts are perceived differently by different people.

And now you are literally comparing paedophilic arousals with normal fetishes. You know one thing is illegal/condemned and the other ones are completely okay. You say my comparisons are disproportionate but what is this then? Does not make a sound argument at all. You think if one wants to eradicate the possibility of distributing products that can arouse paedophiles is equalling eradicating s** in general. Girl please…

[stanLOONA]