Someone wants a pay day. The age of great album covers has been over since the advent of online media, but this was one of the most iconic (although, the music was terrible).
Spencer Elden, the man who was photographed as a baby on the album cover for Nirvana’s Nevermind, is suing the band alleging sexual exploitation.
The cover depicts Elden as a four-month-old in a swimming pool, grasping for a dollar bill that’s being dangled in front of him on a fishing line.
Now 30, Elden says his parents never signed a release authorising the use of his image on the album.
He also alleges the nude image constitutes child pornography.
“The images exposed Spencer’s intimate body part and lasciviously displayed Spencer’s genitals from the time he was an infant to the present day,” legal papers filed in California claim.
Non-sexualised photos of infants are generally not considered child pornography under US law.
While they weren’t my favorite Seattle Band (Alice in Chains!), I don’t know if I can take anything you say seriously now that you called the music terrible. Your opinion on that is… just wrong. Owen, I pick you more for a hair metal or country fan unfortunately.
But yes, he is looking for a payday.
Frankly, I question that you ever took anything I say seriously before lol. There are few opinions more strongly held than what constitutes good music or not. And yeah, I’m more of a metal, country, Broadway, classical guy…
I can get behind Broadway and some classical. But would honestly just pop my eardrums with a rusty nail if I had to listen to modern country on a regular basis. Now you throw me some Patsy Cline… I can deal with that.
I take what you say seriously. I rarely agree with it.
Modern country is not country. It’s twangy pop. We can agree on Ms. Cline.
Yep, looking for a payday 30 years later.
The one caveat is if his guardians were never notified or paid, then it is possibility he might be entitled to some money.
As far as child porn, well for mainstream America, no.
But there are some perverts out there, like that pervert judge who probably get their jollies out if it.
Gotta be honest, I like some 80-90’s songs. (And a couple of decades earlier)
But I never heard of Nirvana until Cobain blew his brains out.
I’m thinking they are more famous after his death than before.
Music was terrible. All I remember was that when I was editor of a school newspaper, we ran a guest editorial titled “Kurt Cobain is worm food for good reason” and the liberals on campus went nuts.
Mar. I disagree. Nirvana literally changed the landscape of music at the time. Damn near overnight the culture went from glam-rock to alt-rock. And that was primarily due to Nirvana’s Nevermind album. They created a scene.
They were more famous at the time. Nevermind is usually ranked in the top 10 albums of all time (although not totally my jam). I think that the suicide ultimately kept them in the stratosphere of music forever. Odds are they would have started putting out worse and worse albums (**ahem Pearl Jam). But, it is hard to say. Because with Dave Grohl in the band, you never know what would have happened. Dave is a musical genius by all accounts.
I’m just glad the depressing grunge wave rolled by in a few years. It’s what made me turn off FM. What followed wasn’t much better. I’ll stick with my early AC/DC, Montrose, and SRV, thanks.
There’s lots of good country out there – new stuff even – but you have to go get it. You won’t hear much on most broadcast radio (there a “classic country” station around here somewhere) or at the CMT Music awards. Personally, I think Garth Brooks was the incubator of “twangy pop” and the downhill slide of country music. Big flashy show, horrible singer. Gimme some Waylon or Parton or Price, or Ernest Tubb for authentic way-back.
Elwood: What kind of music do you usually have here?
Claire: Oh, we got both kinds. We got country AND western.