It seeks at least $150,000 in damages from each defendant, along with legal fees.īut Judge Fernando Olguin of the Central District Court in California dismissed Elden’s suit with prejudice, ruling that he had waited too long to file suit.
Elden says Nirvana’s surviving members, Cobain’s estate and others have “leveraged the lascivious nature of his image” to market and make millions of dollars off of the famous album.īut the defendants say Elden has himself previously sought to parlay his infant fame into adult profits, playing up his “Nirvana Baby” status by re-enacting the photo and autographing copies of the album.Įlden’s lawsuit, filed in August 2021, names Cobain’s estate and former bandmates, along with photographer Kirk Weddle, Universal Music, Geffen Records, Warner Records and MCA Music.
A fishhook and dollar bill were later edited into the image. “Masha’s law permits victims to sue for each violation of their privacy when their childhood images remain in circulation.”Įlden, 31, was 4 months old when he was photographed underwater at the Pasadena Aquatic Center in California. “Most child pornography is traded well into the victim’s adulthood,” attorney Margaret Mabie said via email. Elden says Nirvana and its record label have profited from child pornography by selling the album that famously features him on the cover. Spencer Elden is appealing the dismissal, his lawyers told NPR, arguing that the judge in the case has misinterpreted the federal child sexual exploitation law known as Masha’s law.
But a lawsuit from a man who appeared as a naked baby on the band’s landmark Nevermind album still isn’t paying off: a federal judge has once again dismissed the lawsuit. Teenage angst pays off well, as Nirvana‘s Kurt Cobain sang.
0 kommentar(er)
