The band will argue that the image is clearly more like the latter. If unsuccessful, the band will likely make a more basic argument: that the image does not amount to child pornography at all.Ĭhild pornography laws cover sexual images of minors, but they typically do not apply to more innocent photos of nude children, like an image of a child at home in the bathtub. Wednesday’s filing is likely only the first salvo in Nirvana’s efforts to dismiss the lawsuit. “The statute of limitations restarts claims each time UMG reproduces, distributes, or possesses Spencer’s Nirvana cover image.”

“Nirvana and UMG’s motion to dismiss focuses on their past conduct and ignores their ongoing distribution, especially with the 30-year Nevermind anniversary and profit margins,” said Robert Y. In a statement to Billboard on Thursday, an attorney for Elden said the statute-of-limitations argument would fail because Nirvana and UMG had continued to profit from the allegedly-offending image. In addition to Nirvana’s corporate entity, the lawsuit also named Kurt Cobain’s estate, Universal Music Group, Dave Grohl, and a number of other companies and individuals. “Spencer’s true identity and legal name are forever tied to the commercial sexual exploitation he experienced as a minor which has been distributed and sold worldwide from the time he was a baby to the present day,” he wrote at the time. But in a lawsuit filed in August, Elden claimed it was something else entirely: the kind of “lascivious” display of a minor’s genitals that’s prohibited under federal child pornography statutes. The album’s cover - a nude infant swimming in a pool chasing after a dollar attached to a fishhook - has long been interpreted as an edgy critique of greed and capitalism. The album has sold more than 30 million copies and is widely considered one of the most influential in the history of popular music. 24, 1991, Nevermind reached the top spot on the Billboard 200 in January 1992 and ultimately spent 554 weeks on the chart. He has been fully aware of the facts of both the supposed ‘violation’ and ‘injury’ for decades.” “Long before 2011, as Elden has pled, Elden knew about the photograph, and knew that he (and not someone else) was the baby in the photograph. It was world-famous by no later than 1992,” the band wrote. “But the Nevermind cover photograph was taken in 1991. For Elden, Nirvana said, that would mean he only discovered the image in 2011. The band even accused Elden of having “used the connection to try to pick up women,” citing a media interview in which he recounted such a story.įederal child pornography law has a 10-year statute of limitations, which begins running from the point when a victim “reasonably discovers” the problem - meaning either the violation itself or the harm caused by it. “Elden has spent three decades profiting from his celebrity as the self-anointed ‘Nirvana Baby,’” the band wrote, noting that Elden had “re-enacted the photograph in exchange for a fee” multiple times and has the name of the album tattooed on his chest. In the band’s first formal response to the lawsuit, Nirvana said Wednesday that Elden’s case has a fatal-flaw: It was filed years after the statute of limitations had run out, by a man who had long embraced the image. Turkish Pop Singer Gulsen Indicted For Inciting Hatred, Facing Three Years in Prison

Nirvana nevermind cover back