Elden re-enacted the photo for money 'many times,' the lawyers said, even had the album title tattooed across his chest, appeared on a talk show wearing a self-parodying nude-colored onesie and had 'used the connection to try to pick up women.'

Well seems Elden lived up to the image of chasing the bait dollar on a hook..

I wonder how the pickup line worked for him? I've heard of fanatical band 'groupettes' but this seems a stretch..

Nirvana win dismissal of ‘Nevermind’ naked baby’s lawsuit

Los Angeles: Nirvana have won the dismissal of a lawsuit by a man who claimed his depiction as a naked four-month-old baby on the cover of the band’s seminal 1991 album Nevermind was child pornography.

In a decision on Friday, US District Judge Fernando Olguin in Los Angeles said Spencer Elden waited too long to claim Nirvana sexually exploited him, having sued more than 10 years after learning about the cover.



“In sum, plaintiff fails to allege that he knew of a violation that occurred while he was a minor or an injury that forms the basis of the claim within ten years of filing this action,” Olguin wrote.

Elden had filed three versions of his complaint, and Olguin’s dismissal prevents him from filing a fourth.

A lawyer for Elden did not immediately respond on to requests for comment.

Bert Deixler, a lawyer for the defendants, said: “We are pleased that this meritless case has been brought to a speedy final conclusion.”

Full: https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/world/ ... 5bfbd.html

I would think there would be statute of limitations on something like this too. It isn't like he didn't know about it for his life!

phuketrichard wrote: ↑Tue Sep 06, 2022 2:39 pm he loved the attention he got from it<

And then loved the idea of cashing in on it.

It's not over

Federal court revives lawsuit against Nirvana over 1991 ‘Nevermind’ naked baby album cover

LOS ANGELES (AP) — A federal appeals court on Thursday revived a child sexual exploitation lawsuit filed by the man who appeared naked as a 4-month-old on the cover of Nirvana’s 1991 album “Nevermind.”

Spencer Elden’s lawsuit against the grunge rock group alleges that he has suffered “permanent harm” as the band and others profited from the image of him underwater in a swimming pool, appearing to grab for a dollar bill on a fish hook.

The suit says the image violated federal laws on child sexual abuse material, although no criminal charges were ever sought.

A federal judge in California threw out the lawsuit last year but allowed Elden to file a revised version, which the judge later dismissed on grounds that it was outside the 10-year statute of limitations of one of the laws used as a cause of action.

Thursday’s decision by a three-judge panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in California reversed that ruling and sent the case back to the lower court. The appellate panel found that each republication of an image “may constitute a new personal injury” with a new deadline and cited the image’s appearance on a 30th anniversary reissue of “Nevermind” in 2021.

“The question whether the ‘Nevermind’ album cover meets the definition of child pornography is not at issue in this appeal,” the court wrote, according to the New York Times.

In an email to The Associated Press, Nirvana attorney Bert Deixler called the ruling a “procedural setback.”

“We will defend this meritless case with vigor and expect to prevail,” he wrote.

The Associated Press does not typically name people who say they have been victims of sexual abuse unless they come forward publicly, as Elden has.

https://apnews.com/article/nirvana-neve ... 80ac2d030f