Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, FreeBritBrit said:

 

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

 

 

 

 

Yes let him fish 🎣 🐠 I know and there is nothing wrong with being opportunistic if you are in deep water, we would probably all do that if we had zero money. Nobody is getting hurt from this. Him being hypocritical yea does not look good but he has the right to at least try suing. If he gets 2.00.000 k out of it, good for him. Why should we judge. It is his body and the court will provide justice. I guess 🥸.

Link to comment
51 minutes ago, MortalMarshmallow said:

Yes let him fish 🎣 🐠 I know and there is nothing wrong with being opportunistic if you are in deep water, we would probably all do that if we had zero money. Nobody is getting hurt from this. Him being hypocritical yea does not look good but he has the right to at least try suing. If he gets 2.00.000 k out of it, good for him. Why should we judge. It is his body and the court will provide justice. I guess 🥸.

ok sure but why sue and then lose and then recreate the pic for the anniversary and u ureself asking for the nude version of the recreating. All that the same year

idk

Link to comment
1 hour ago, MortalMarshmallow said:

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…

This.

Comparing a feet fetish with paedophilic behavior...I just can't...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
4 hours ago, MortalMarshmallow said:

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…

My question was bland but you’re talking about taps in a basement..are you honestly unable to see the difference between this image and real child ****ography? Like what is being lost in translation here? 

Anyway, I wasn’t comparing the acts of p*******a and ***ual fetishes, that’s silly. I was comparing the reactionary responses, but again you’re going over the top and trying to twist my words to justify you’re fake internet outrage lol.

Doing away with an album cover isn’t going to cure the world of p*******a, just like covering your feet won’t deter foot fetishes, or banning horror movies to deter would be murderers, it’s futile (does this help you understand the point I was making?) 

I’d also disagree that the context is open to interpretation. The context is pretty transparent. They shot a picture of a baby for an album cover. There’s not much more to it than that. No $exualization, no $exual exploitation, nothing nefarious whatsoever. But go off sis, there’s plenty of internet SJWs that’ll join in you the manufactured outrage if you’re bored.

  • Love 2
Link to comment

@IForgotYouExisted I wasn’t comparing the acts at all, I was comparing the reaction/response. Obviously one is 1000x worse than the other. The point I was trying to make is that pedophiles are going to do what they do regardless and trying to limit what is considered normal, everyday material to try and curb their behaviors is pointless. Sorry that you were unable to understand the analogy. 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, kdub87 said:

My question was bland but you’re talking about taps in a basement..are you honestly unable to see the difference between this image and real child ****ography? Like what is being lost in translation here? 

You haven’t read or have already forgotten what I wrote in my first quote to you at the bottom. No time to repeat myself. Go back and reread. 
 

Btw in your last two sections of the post you just sent to me, you contradict yourself. Maybe reread that too. 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, kdub87 said:

@IForgotYouExisted I wasn’t comparing the acts at all, I was comparing the reaction/response. Obviously one is 1000x worse than the other. The point I was trying to make is that pedophiles are going to do what they do regardless and trying to limit what is considered normal, everyday material to try and curb their behaviors is pointless. Sorry that you were unable to understand the analogy. 

Taking pictures of a baby’s genitals is normal everyday material to you? Well… okay… then… I do it very rarely I must confess. Actually… never. Don’t think a lot of people take **** pics of children everyday and on top of that use the pics to sell stuff. But maybe I am just ignorant, not aware or not welcome in such normal everyday circles as you describe.

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, MortalMarshmallow said:

Taking pictures of a baby’s genitals is normal everyday material to you? Well… okay… then… I do it very rarely I must confess. Actually… never. Don’t think a lot of people take **** pics of children everyday and on top of that use the pics to sell stuff. But maybe I am just ignorant or not welcome in such normal everyday circles as you describe.

that baby **** on the pic was not the main focus of the album cover tho

This is why they should replace it with the censored version and close the whole bs case

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, FreeBritBrit said:

that baby **** on the pic was not the main focus of the album cover tho

The baby fills like half the photo, there is a dollar bill and there is water. The baby is the driving force wanting to grasp the bill. Hence the center of attention, the subject and the money is the object. The water is the environment.

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, MortalMarshmallow said:

The baby fills like half the photo, there is a dollar bill and there is water. The baby is the driving force wanting to grasp the bill. Hence the center of attention, the subject and the money is the object. 

 

And now due to this cash grabbing dude one of the most iconic album covers will be ****ed up

 

 

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, FreeBritBrit said:

 

And now due to this cash grabbing dude one of the most iconic album covers will be ****ed up

 

 

You can always save the pic on your pc. The pic will always be on the internet anyway. And people have had like 30 years to buy a copy of the album. I do think he will lose his case and not much will come out of it. 

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, MortalMarshmallow said:

You can always save the pic on your pc. The pic will always be on the internet anyway. And people have had like 30 years to buy a copy of the album. I do think he will lose his case and not much will come out of it. 

I think so too. He tried to sue in 2016, failed, did the recreation and now he's trying to do the same

Link to comment
  • Exhale+

I’m in two minds about this…

Whilst I do think this guy is out for a payday (and this cover is iconic)… I do think he is entitled to sue as I would class this as a form of child ****ography. Some of y’all might disagree with me on that which is fine .

 

That being said, the 90s were a different time and crimes against children were very much swept under the rug. And so people wouldn’t of thought twice about this back then with the exception of pedos

 

Link to comment
3 hours ago, MortalMarshmallow said:

Taking pictures of a baby’s genitals is normal everyday material to you? Well… okay… then… I do it very rarely I must confess. Actually… never. Don’t think a lot of people take **** pics of children everyday and on top of that use the pics to sell stuff. But maybe I am just ignorant, not aware or not welcome in such normal everyday circles as you describe.

I’ve given this more time than I’d have liked, and I think it’s silly that I even have to explain something that should be so obvious to any sane minded person. 

Feeling like I have to defend people like my nana for having a picture of me as a naked toddler atop her fireplace. Or the pictures my mother has of me in the bathtub wearing a bubble beard and not much else. I’m sorry that people like yourself twist such things into something sinister just because where YOUR mind goes. It’s sad.

You’re right about one thing, you definitely wouldn’t be welcome in my circles. You’d probably try to have my nana arrested for possession of “child ****ography” :wtf_britney_what_confused_um:

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
10 hours ago, kdub87 said:

I’ve given this more time than I’d have liked, and I think it’s silly that I even have to explain something that should be so obvious to any sane minded person. 

Feeling like I have to defend people like my nana for having a picture of me as a naked toddler atop her fireplace. Or the pictures my mother has of me in the bathtub wearing a bubble beard and not much else. I’m sorry that people like yourself twist such things into something sinister just because where YOUR mind goes. It’s sad.

You’re right about one thing, you definitely wouldn’t be welcome in my circles. You’d probably try to have my nana arrested for possession of “child ****ography” :wtf_britney_what_confused_um:

 

You call me sad, insane and wanting to arrest grandmas? Please have the rationality to separate family pictures from commercial ones! Your grandma was never attacked by me nor your family pictures because they are private family ones not commercial ones. Okay? Now end of story we are obviously on two very different communicative vibrations and this will never work 😄.

 

And for a third time since you refuse to reread my first post, no my mind does not go there. But if you make it out to it could maybe help your case so I see what you tried to do there, stubbornly without actually taking in what I write to you. 

Link to comment
17 hours ago, bspearsMJfan5 said:

Sounds just like some others 30-40 something nobodies' looking for a payout from a super famous individual no longer with us... 

I won't name names but.. :katyclown_makeup_mess_pie_meme_smile::britoverit_britney_eyeroll_roll_eyes_annoyed_whatever:   

 

You know because the dead can defend themselves, yes there is estates in place.. but still

 

Unreal!! 

He is suing alive members of the band but Kurt was prob behind the whole concept for the album cover. So yea I agree

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   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  :badthoughts_gun_kris_genner_thinking_debating:

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