Japan Today
entertainment

Court revives Nirvana child pornography lawsuit over 'Nevermind' cover

67 Comments
By Blake Brittain

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Thomson Reuters 2023.

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

67 Comments
Login to comment

Someone needs to point out that being naked is not always about sex/pornography.

16 ( +21 / -5 )

Elden is just desperate to cash in on this iconic album cover. The claims of child pornography are simply ludicrous.

16 ( +19 / -3 )

More lunacy from lunatic HQ. (USA).

13 ( +15 / -2 )

I bet this Elden freak is a junkie and needs the cash to fuel his lifestyle. What a loser he is.

5 ( +9 / -4 )

The album cover is so good it should replace the Stars and Stripes as an evocation of America.

4 ( +10 / -6 )

America...

4 ( +8 / -4 )

WandoraToday 08:23 am JST

America...

protecting the rights of children? Yes, we should be proud of that.

-21 ( +2 / -23 )

I wonder whether the people saying it is no big deal would want their privates viewable all over the world because of their scum parents.

-21 ( +1 / -22 )

I wonder whether the people saying it is no big deal would want their privates viewable all over the world because of their scum parents.

No one would have known who he was if he'd kept quiet and not tried to milk the system for financial gain.

12 ( +15 / -3 )

Another great album cover also featuring a baby that provides a great commentary on modern life is The Tubes, "Remote Control" from 1979. The baby has not complained at being exploited.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

I'm sure that that guy used the cover to try to get woman so he gained a lot.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

WandoraToday 09:04 am JST

I wonder whether the people saying it is no big deal would want their privates viewable all over the world because of their scum parents.

No one would have known who he was if he'd kept quiet and not tried to milk the system for financial gain.

And perhaps he would have preferred it that way rather than unwillingly becoming a porn star for a pittance.

-14 ( +2 / -16 )

MoonrakerToday 09:09 am JST

Another great album cover also featuring a baby that provides a great commentary on modern life is The Tubes, "Remote Control" from 1979. The baby has not complained at being exploited.

That baby is no naked that we can see. Quite simple really.

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

fatrainfallingintheforestToday 11:05 am JST

So personally harmed was he by the cover that he posed for recreations of it several times, to celebrate Nevermind's 10th, 20th and 25th anniversaries. Consensually, and while wearing shorts.

Yeah, because the damage was done and he was trying to get at least something out of the experience.

To make the sexual exploitation charge stick (as a naked picture doesn't necessarily equal pornography), he says that the dollar bill makes him look like a sex worker.

That's like saying that upskirting is not pornography, but you are right that there are a shockingly large number of states where that is legal.

-15 ( +1 / -16 )

MoonrakerToday 08:20 am JST

The album cover is so good it should replace the Stars and Stripes as an evocation of America.

Har dee har har. One only has to read the headlines to see a lot of countries bending over for the yen, yuan, ruble, rupee.

-14 ( +0 / -14 )

And perhaps he would have preferred it that way rather than unwillingly becoming a porn star for a pittance.

That anyone could view that image of a baby as being "a porn star" is at the very least disturbing.

12 ( +14 / -2 )

He should be pressing charges for attempted murder.

Who in their right mind throws a baby into a pool.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Hilarious! Cause showing his 'privates' when he was four months old is the same as showing his 'privates' now. So he can be identified and recognized as an adult from the photo when he was four months old. Somehow this equates to child pornography. This extreme, ultra-puritanical attitude now means that any photos of naked babies in public are now perceived as child abuse. What's disturbing is how anyone can see a naked four month old baby as sexual in any way. Those that think this way are themselves guilty of deviant thinking.

9 ( +11 / -2 )

That baby is no naked that we can see

Wouldn't necessarily mean the adult version of the baby couldn't claim to have been unwittingly exploited though, does it?

Still, I know you believe in might is right so, hell, the baby got exploited, right? That's life. No?

One only has to read the headlines to see a lot of countries bending over for the yen, yuan, ruble, rupee.

And whatabout? Nobody is denying that capital accumulation hasn't become the fateful norm; only that it has long been generally recognised worldwide to be the American raison d'etre.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

MoonrakerToday 12:33 pm JST

That baby is no naked that we can see

Wouldn't necessarily mean the adult version of the baby couldn't claim to have been unwittingly exploited though, does it?

It's a non-naked photo in your example, at least on the bottom. Not sure what the claim of exploitation would be. I guess if it were a female baby, they might have issues, but you'd have to ask a woman's opinion on that.

Still, I know you believe in might is right so, hell, the baby got exploited, right? That's life. No?

I do not believe in might is right, that is why I want to see the country assaulting Ukraine punished.

One only has to read the headlines to see a lot of countries bending over for the yen, yuan, ruble, rupee.

And whatabout? Nobody is denying that capital accumulation hasn't become the fateful norm; only that it has long been generally recognised worldwide to be the American raison d'etre.

It's the raison d'etre of practically every country in the world as we can see by the ignoring of sanctions against Russia.

-9 ( +0 / -9 )

fatrainfallingintheforestToday 12:07 pm JST

Yeah, because the damage was done and he was trying to get at least something out of the experience.

As he is now. He also says that being the subject of that photo opened doors for him in the art world, so by his own admission he's had plenty out of it already.

"It's always been a positive thing and opened doors for me," he told the Guardian six years ago. "I'm 23 now and an artist, and this story gave me an opportunity to work with Shepard Fairey for five years, which was an awesome experience. He is a huge music connoisseur: when he heard I was the Nirvana baby, he thought that was really cool."

People are free to reassess past damage done to them and to stop trying to smile and laugh things off. You don't know whether the opened doors offered sufficient monetary compensation for the harm done to him.

I guess you're not an art fan. Is the Statue of David pornography? The frescoes of Michelangelo? It's all about intention.

I'm not going to get into a discussion of what is pornography and pornography doesn't have to be a bad thing or illegal. We should just acknowledge that the Nevermind cover should never have been made public without its subject's consent any more than an upskirt photo should be.

"I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"], and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that."

United States Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart.

Yeah, a disgusting and nonsensical standard when it was first handed down. That was about obscenity, too, and has thankfully been rendered completely irrelevant thanks to the internet.

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

MilesTegToday 12:03 pm JST

Hilarious! Cause showing his 'privates' when he was four months old is the same as showing his 'privates' now. So he can be identified and recognized as an adult from the photo when he was four months old. Somehow this equates to child pornography.

Does a google search of his name bring up the photo of his privates? Then yes, it is child pornography.

This extreme, ultra-puritanical attitude now means that any photos of naked babies in public are now perceived as child abuse.

If the parents keep that stuff to themselves they have nothing to worry about. They really shouldn't be taking such photos and video, though. Not sure who just changes their baby's diaper in public.

What's disturbing is how anyone can see a naked four month old baby as sexual in any way. Those that think this way are themselves guilty of deviant thinking.

I'm sorry the humans offend you but humans are polymorphously perverse including attacking those that are already suffering/humiliated.

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

I had not heard of nirvana before this, as i am not a USA music fan, but this album cover means absolutely nothing to almost every one, and I bet it does not even register as child porn anywhere. This mans law suit is just another frivolous case in a country where you can be sued for almost anything.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

TaiwanIsNotChinaToday  01:13 pm JST

Does a google search of his name bring up the photo of his privates? Then yes, it is child pornography.

That's your definition of child pornography? LOL!

"Child pornography, in criminal law, any visual depiction of a minor (a person who has not reached the age of consent) engaging in sexually explicit activity. In the federal criminal code of the United States, child pornography is partly defined as “any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image” that depicts actual or simulated sexually explicit activity by a minor."

What part of that photo depicts sexually explicit activity?

If the parents keep that stuff to themselves they have nothing to worry about. They really shouldn't be taking such photos and video, though. Not sure who just changes their baby's diaper in public.

You clearly don't have children. If you did, you would have changed your baby's diaper in public at least once. But let me guess.....changing a baby's diaper in public is child pornography to you.

I'm sorry the humans offend you but humans are polymorphously perverse including attacking those that are already suffering/humiliated.

Complete gibberish. The fact of the matter is when I see a naked four year old baby swimming in a pool, I see a naked four year old baby swimming in a pool. When you see a naked four year old baby swimming in a pool, you see child pornography. Clearly it's you who's thinking something deviant and perverse when you see the photo not me. There's something wrong with the way you think.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

fatrainfallingintheforestToday  11:05 am JST

Elden, now 32, first sued the band and its label Universal Music Group in 2021, accusing them of sexually exploiting him through his depiction on the "Nevermind" album cover and causing him continuing personal harm.

So personally harmed was he by the cover that he posed for recreations of it several times, to celebrate Nevermind's 10th, 20th and 25th anniversaries. Consensually, and while wearing shorts.

To make the sexual exploitation charge stick (as a naked picture doesn't necessarily equal pornography), he says that the dollar bill makes him look like a sex worker. Personally, I never made that connection. I just thought it was a statement about greed; a condition common to most, if not all, human beings.

Eklen has used this picture and the notoriety it gave him as a vehicle for fame and fortune. Several times at these 'rock-a-thons' or rock conventions he has even signed copies of 'Nevermind' for Nirvana fans because that is him on the cover. And nobody would recognize him from the picture alone because he changed, he grew up (physically).

But now he's being a crybaby himself, chasing after Big Money. Big Money Got No Soul. And the last time he filed this lawsuit was just in time for the 30th anniversary rerelease of 'Nevermind'. Yeah, just in time. Surprise, surprise.

There are many artworks of naked people throughout the ages of men, women and children with their sex organs (and breasts for females) completely exposed; paintings and sculptures.

This extreme, ultra-puritanical attitude now means that any photos of naked babies in public are now perceived as child abuse. What's disturbing is how anyone can see a naked four month old baby as sexual in any way. Those that think this way are themselves guilty of deviant thinking.

Exactly. Whose minds are really in the gutter here? The US cover for the 1991 'Tin Machine II' CD has the phalluses of the Greek statues 'airbrushed' and it looks ridiculous.

And to utilize the overwrought cliche 'WWJD': would Jesus Christ sue all those Renaissance era painters in Europe who painted those 'mother Mary with baby Jesus' paintings depicting the Christ child as nude? With his sex pistol in full display? I don't think so. Not to mention all those small sculptures from 10000 years ago that's been found throughout Europe depicting nude pregnant women.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

starpunkToday 01:51 pm JST

There are many artworks of naked people throughout the ages of men, women and children with their sex organs (and breasts for females) completely exposed; paintings and sculptures.

Completely irrelevant as there is a difference in the law between photographs and video on the one hand and paintings and especially paintings of fictional characters.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

MilesTegToday 01:49 pm JST

TaiwanIsNotChinaToday  01:13 pm JST

Does a google search of his name bring up the photo of his privates? Then yes, it is child pornography.

That's your definition of child pornography? LOL!

"Child pornography, in criminal law, any visual depiction of a minor (a person who has not reached the age of consent) engaging in sexually explicit activity. In the federal criminal code of the United States, child pornography is partly defined as “any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image” that depicts actual or simulated sexually explicit activity by a minor."

What part of that photo depicts sexually explicit activity?

https://www.justice.gov/criminal/criminal-ceos/citizens-guide-us-federal-law-child-pornography

Notably, the legal definition of sexually explicit conduct does not require that an image depict a child engaging in sexual activity. A picture of a naked child may constitute illegal child pornography if it is sufficiently sexually suggestive.

So yeah, it is context dependent. The only way to be safe is not to take the picture at all.

If the parents keep that stuff to themselves they have nothing to worry about. They really shouldn't be taking such photos and video, though. Not sure who just changes their baby's diaper in public.

You clearly don't have children. If you did, you would have changed your baby's diaper in public at least once. But let me guess.....changing a baby's diaper in public is child pornography to you.

You are mixing up all kinds of stuff. No need to respond to this nonsense.

I'm sorry the humans offend you but humans are polymorphously perverse including attacking those that are already suffering/humiliated.

Complete gibberish. The fact of the matter is when I see a naked four year old baby swimming in a pool, I see a naked four year old baby swimming in a pool. When you see a naked four year old baby swimming in a pool, you see child pornography. Clearly it's you who's thinking something deviant and perverse when you see the photo not me. There's something wrong with the way you think.

Oh no!!!! You are outraged at me!!!! Whatever will I do?!?!? Clearly something is gibberish and it isn't my statement.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

Just a loser looking for easy money..

Get over it..

2 ( +6 / -4 )

That album with that cover sold over 30,000,000 copies. Are the keystone cops going to try to arrest everyone who has a copy with possession of child pornography?

That image fits well within community standards as not being pornographic.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

protecting the rights of children? Yes, we should be proud of that.

https://tenor.com/view/dragontan-gif-24234219

LOL!!

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

fatrainfallingintheforestToday  02:00 pm JST

People are free to reassess past damage done to them and to stop trying to smile and laugh things off. You don't know whether the opened doors offered sufficient monetary compensation for the harm done to him.

All about the money, huh. Thanks for making my point.

I'm not going to get into a discussion of what is pornography and pornography doesn't have to be a bad thing or illegal.

Because this isn't it.

No it isn't.

We should just acknowledge that the Nevermind cover should never have been made public without its subject's consent any more than an upskirt photo should be.

On most initial copies at least in America in 1991 there was an exterior sticker on the wrapping that covered the baby's penis.

The Italian band Maneskin released their third album 'Rush!' early this year and the back cover of the CD shows an upskirt photo of a teen girl jumping over the bandmates lying on the floor, looking up at her . That picture is covered up on the packaging by a huge sticker (with writing) over it. Then again, Maneskin goes out of their way to be revolting, juvenile, vile, obscene and stupid. Just listen to the songs and see their videos and see. Nirvana made a classic #1 album that revolutionized rock for a new decade - 'Grunge' = punk + heavy metal + glam rock. Maneskin is just plain sickening and vulgar and they do their darndest to express themselves in that manner. They truly have nothing to say. Big difference.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

fatrainfallingintheforestToday 02:00 pm JST

People are free to reassess past damage done to them and to stop trying to smile and laugh things off. You don't know whether the opened doors offered sufficient monetary compensation for the harm done to him.

All about the money, huh. Thanks for making my point.

Yes, the only thing the court can do at this point is assess a monetary penalty. This should not be surprising.

We should just acknowledge that the Nevermind cover should never have been made public without its subject's consent any more than an upskirt photo should be.

He was too young to give consent. The same, correct, argument given in child sexual abuse and statutory rape cases. His parents, his legal guardians, did give consent.

All you are proving, I hope, is that there are things parents can't give consent for and this should have been one of them.

-9 ( +1 / -10 )

TaiwanIsNotChinaToday  02:18 pm JST

https://www.justice.gov/criminal/criminal-ceos/citizens-guide-us-federal-law-child-pornography

So yeah, it is context dependent. The only way to be safe is not to take the picture at all.

You are mixing up all kinds of stuff. No need to respond to this nonsense.

Oh no!!!! You are outraged at me!!!! Whatever will I do?!?!? Clearly something is gibberish and it isn't my statement.

"A picture of a naked child may constitute illegal child pornography if it is sufficiently sexually suggestive."

How is that picture sexually suggestive? Do you have evidence that the members of Nirvana are pedophiles? No. So there's not even any context that can be construed sexual except in your dirty mind.

I'm not mixing anything up. You introduced changing baby diapers as an example not me. You introduced more nonsense to your oversexualized mind.

Outraged? No. Laughable yes! Your response was, not surprisingly, childish because you can't reply maturely to the fact that you see a four month old naked baby swimming in a pool as sexual.

You're the only one that sees that picture as sexual. I wonder why.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

fatrainfallingintheforestToday 02:36 pm JST

Yes, the only thing the court can do at this point is assess a monetary penalty. This should not be surprising.

Again, my point made. Having been fine with it for decades, Elden now sees another pay day in it. At least you're not pretending that this is anything to do with pornography or exploitation anymore.

You proved nothing about what Mr. Elden is thinking. I admit that as far as I can surmise no criminal charges could be brought against the people involved but Mr. Elden can win damages without it being as the result of a crime.

All you are proving, I hope, is that there are things parents can't give consent for and this should have been one of them.

Absolutely. Crimes. This hasn't been categorised as a crime, as far as I know. And if parents do give 'consent' for crimes to be committed upon their kids' person, they should be charged, too. Have they been? Is Elden suing his parents as well? No.

I don't know what the status of Mr. Elden's parents are. If you do, please let us know.

-10 ( +0 / -10 )

MilesTegToday 03:32 pm JST

You're the only one that sees that picture as sexual. I wonder why.

I am not the only one in the universe that sees Mr. Elden as having a legitimate case and we aren't the one defending this nasty cover.

-11 ( +0 / -11 )

Utterly laughable that anyone, would think this is child porn and therefore abusive. Maybe they should crowdfund the guy to sue his parents for abuse? The Mind Boggles.

I look forward to my original LP rocketing in price because this guy doesn’t know when to quit. Last I looked, it was ¥45,000…..Lovely Jubbly, Rodders!

5 ( +5 / -0 )

TaiwanIsNotChinaToday  03:51 pm JST

I am not the only one in the universe that sees Mr. Elden as having a legitimate case and we aren't the one defending this nasty cover.

If you think that a naked four month baby swimming in a pool is sexual in any way, it's you who has nasty thoughts. His case wasn't legitimate because it got thrown out of court and it will be again. You are part of an insignificant, damaged minority that see something only sexual in a naked human body.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

Shouldn't he be talking to his parents, who apparently offered him as a model to make money?

4 ( +5 / -1 )

This is so stupid! Now anything naked is pornography!!!! All those roman sculptures, paintings, and family photographs!!! If that is the case, I need to sue somebody!!! I found a photo of myself naked when I was 2 years old in 1963!!!!

4 ( +5 / -1 )

We are all born naked into the world.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

And perhaps he would have preferred it that way rather than unwillingly becoming a porn star for a pittance.

Hi Bass!

Every accusation is a confession, and they just can't help themselves from confessing everything, all the time.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Does a google search of his name bring up the photo of his privates? Then yes, it is child pornography.

The fact that your mind turns to sex when you see a naked baby is slightly disturbing.

My dog is naked all the time. Hopefully if you saw a photo of him you wouldn't claim it is animal pornography. Unless the material is designator titillate, it cannot be defined as pornographic.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

fatrainfallingintheforestDec. 23 08:38 pm JST

You proved nothing about what Mr. Elden is thinking

Right. Recreating the cover numerous times for money, using it as leverage to open doors in the art world in which he was persuing a career, and now suing the band members thirty years after the fact. It's pretty self evident, really.

I can think of a lot more frivolous lawsuits.

I don't know what the status of Mr. Elden's parents are. If you do, please let us know.

All you need to know is that they aren't being taken to court for damages by Mr. Elden.

Nobody is required to sue everybody involved the same way. It's possible, if his parents are still alive, that they have expressed more contrition than the band members and Mr. Elden has no urge to sue them.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

I'm guessing the guy isn't particularly successful and sees this lawsuit as his meal ticket.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

fatrainfallingintheforestToday  02:00 pm JST

People are free to reassess past damage done to them and to stop trying to smile and laugh things off. You don't know whether the opened doors offered sufficient monetary compensation for the harm done to him.

All about the money, huh. Thanks for making my point.

I'm not going to get into a discussion of what is pornography and pornography doesn't have to be a bad thing or illegal.

Because this isn't it.

No it isn't.

TaiwanIsNotChinaDec. 23  01:07 pm JST

fatrainfallingintheforestToday 12:07 pm JST

Yeah, because the damage was done and he was trying to get at least something out of the experience.

As he is now. He also says that being the subject of that photo opened doors for him in the art world, so by his own admission he's had plenty out of it already.

"It's always been a positive thing and opened doors for me," he told the Guardian six years ago. "I'm 23 now and an artist, and this story gave me an opportunity to work with Shepard Fairey for five years, which was an awesome experience. He is a huge music connoisseur: when he heard I was the Nirvana baby, he thought that was really cool."

People are free to reassess past damage done to them and to stop trying to smile and laugh things off. You don't know whether the opened doors offered sufficient monetary compensation for the harm done to him.

I guess you're not an art fan. Is the Statue of David pornography? The frescoes of Michelangelo? It's all about intention.

I'm not going to get into a discussion of what is pornography and pornography doesn't have to be a bad thing or illegal. We should just acknowledge that the Nevermind cover should never have been made public without its subject's consent any more than an upskirt photo should be.

On most initial copies at least in America in 1991 there was an exterior sticker on the wrapping that covered the baby's penis.

The Italian band Maneskin released their third album 'Rush!' early this year and the back cover of the CD shows an upskirt photo of a teen girl jumping over the bandmates lying on the floor, looking up at her . That picture is covered up on the packaging by a huge sticker (with writing) over it. Then again, Maneskin goes out of their way to be revolting, juvenile, vile, obscene and stupid. Just listen to the songs and see their videos and see. 

You can't always judge an album by its cover but since Elden has profited and benefitted from the album cover picture, he has no legitimacy in this case whatsoever. And once again, since there are SO many art works that depict nude men. women, children; the ones who howl about it the most are the ones with their minds in the gutter.

Porn, esp. kid porn is rotten and demeaning garbage. It's meant only to 'turn on' the sickos who patronize that trash. And the 'Nevermind' cover was never meant to fulfill that purpose or function, mind you.

This isn't going to fly, and it shouldn't. Elden is wasting time and money for this frivolous exercise. He made money from his fame he got from all this as well as the opportunities and doors it opened for him. He needs to quit acting like a Donald Trump-type crybaby and just shaddup his face!!!!

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I couldn’t decide which one is the most dumb, is it the court? Is it the US law? is it the person suing? Or all of the above are equally brainless? it is really hard to decide.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

What the...What kind of personal harm? Most people would consider that an honor having their 4 month old selves on the cover of one the most iconic albums in history. Plus, nobody even knows it's you. I'm American, and I love my country and all but man we sure do sue a lot. We've become so soft and lazy.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

uaintseemeDec. 25 11:45 pm JST

What the...What kind of personal harm? Most people would consider that an honor having their 4 month old selves on the cover of one the most iconic albums in history. Plus, nobody even knows it's you. I'm American, and I love my country and all but man we sure do sue a lot. We've become so soft and lazy.

Unable to have a serious interpersonal relationships kind of harm? His future kids having to deal with this come up kind of harm? Some honor. I don't know how his name got released but considering someone said the first recreation was thirty years ago, I presume it was when he was still a minor. This isn't some "the drug company made a drug I abused" kind of lawsuit at least.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

TaiwanIsNotChinaDec. 26 03:04 am JST

uaintseemeDec. 25 11:45 pm JST

What the...What kind of personal harm? Most people would consider that an honor having their 4 month old selves on the cover of one the most iconic albums in history. Plus, nobody even knows it's you. I'm American, and I love my country and all but man we sure do sue a lot. We've become so soft and lazy.

Unable to have a serious interpersonal relationships kind of harm? His future kids having to deal with this come up kind of harm? Some honor. I don't know how his name got released but considering someone said the first recreation was thirty years ago, I presume it was when he was still a minor. This isn't some "the drug company made a drug I abused" kind of lawsuit at least.

I kinda understand what you're saying. Personally, he could have been dealing with something as a result of this but as you said, I am also wondering who outed him? Did his parents tip someone off? Did he willingly file the lawsuit himself? No matter what he does, the damage is already done but if it makes him feel better in the end to at least receive some sort of compensation from them using this picture then I guess that's all that matters.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

I know nothing about music contracts, but I think making him an equal partner as the other band members for the proceeds from this album would be fitting. Would also be classy on the part of the surviving band members and estate if they did it without a court order.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

*as the band members

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Elden is just desperate to cash in on this iconic album cover. The claims of child pornography are simply ludicrous.

That’s it in a nutshell.

I know nothing about music contracts,

I do.

but I think making him an equal partner as the other band members for the proceeds from this album would be fitting.

Just for being a prop? Then that would mean any image used by any band could ask for financial and artistic compensation, that did nothing but added to the album cover, now they should get a one-time payment of a few hundred or thousand for using their likeness, but that’s it.

Would also be classy on the part of the surviving band members and estate if they did it without a court order

So the guy basically mooches off the other band members just for being a naked toddler? Yeah, this is just stupid and has not standing, I would fight this as well.

"This procedural setback does not change our view," Nirvana attorney Bert Deixler said on Thursday. "We will defend this meritless case with vigor and expect to prevail."

I hope they win, this guy should get a real job and stop scamming these people if he doesn’t have one.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

bass4funkToday 10:16 am JST

An album cover is not nothing. It's his ass (or well privates) on the line.

Then that would mean any image used by any band could ask for financial and artistic compensation, that did nothing but added to the album cover, now they should get a one-time payment of a few hundred or thousand for using their likeness, but that’s it.

Nobody said this would be true for all album covers. Just the exploitative kind as determined in court.

So the guy basically mooches off the other band members just for being a naked toddler? Yeah, this is just stupid and has not standing, I would fight this as well.

Just like they mooch off of their past success for eternity, yes.

"This procedural setback does not change our view," Nirvana attorney Bert Deixler said on Thursday. "We will defend this meritless case with vigor and expect to prevail."

I hope they win, this guy should get a real job and stop scamming these people if he doesn’t have one.

I hope Elden succeeds to set limits on what is acceptable to do to babies and toddlers and also to expose what the true morality of the surviving band members is or not.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

An album cover is not nothing. It's his ass (or well privates) on the line. 

He’s going to get laughed out of court.

Nobody said this would be true for all album covers. Just the exploitative kind as determined in court.

How, the case looks extremely weak. The guy sounds more like an extortionist.

Just like they mooch off of their past success for eternity, yes.

Then don’t buy the album and tell people never to use their songs in anything ever.

I hope Elden succeeds to set limits on what is acceptable to do to babies and toddlers and also to expose what the true morality of the surviving band members is or not.

I doubt it.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

bass4funkToday 10:35 am JST

An album cover is not nothing. It's his ass (or well privates) on the line. 

He’s going to get laughed out of court.

The appeals court didn't laugh. You get one child sexual abuse survivor on the jury and a good lawyer for Elden, and Nirvana may not be laughing either.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

The appeals court didn't laugh. You get one child sexual abuse survivor on the jury and a good lawyer for Elden, and Nirvana may not be laughing either.

If that is even possible, they have more money, more power, and can get some of the best lawyers in the country, this kid doesn’t have that kind of cash, which is why he’s doing what he’s doing.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

bass4funkToday 11:01 am JST

The appeals court didn't laugh. You get one child sexual abuse survivor on the jury and a good lawyer for Elden, and Nirvana may not be laughing either.

If that is even possible, they have more money, more power, and can get some of the best lawyers in the country, this kid doesn’t have that kind of cash, which is why he’s doing what he’s doing.

You don't know what lawyer may take his case pro bono for free publicity.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You don't know what lawyer may take his case pro bono for free publicity.

And still they wouldn’t have a chance.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites