“I was asking if they wanted to put a piece of art in the fucking thing,” he said. (The lawyers representing the defendants did not immediately respond to Artnet News’s request for further comment.)Įlden, a painter who once interned for artist Shepard Fairey, explained in a 2016 interview with GQ Australia that his view on the photograph changed after he reached out to Nirvana to see if the band would participate in an art show he was putting on. While they disputed that the image constitutes child sexual abuse material, they noted that the statute of limitations on Elden’s c laim for such a violation would have expired in 2011-two decades after the album’s release. “He has re-enacted the photograph in exchange for a fee, many times he has had the album title… tattooed across his chest he has appeared on a talk show wearing a self-parodying, nude-colored onesie he has autographed copies of the album cover for sale on eBay and he has used the connection to try to pick up women,” the lawyers wrote. The motion also pointed out that, for much of his life, Elden celebrated his connection to the band-and even profited from it. Nudity, they argued, must come with “other circumstances that make the visual depiction lascivious or sexually provocative” to be considered child pornography. They explained that, if Elden’s theory were accurate, anyone who owned a copy of the record would could be charged with felony possession of child pornography. “Elden’s claim that the photograph on the Nevermind album cover is ‘child pornography’ is, on its face, not serious,” the legal representatives for the band said in their motion to dismiss the case last month. Nirvana’s team, meanwhile, remains steadfast that the suit has no merit. Without this the motion to dismiss will be denied.Spencer Elden recreates his pose from the cover of Nirvana’s album Nevermind, shot when he was a baby, 25 years later. meet and confer in person or via video conference to discuss defendants’ motion to dismiss.” The motion to dismiss should, consequently, include details and letters of the “meet and confer” process. Judge Olguin also ordered that, should the defendants wish to apply for another motion to dismiss to the refiled suit, then “counsel for the parties shall, on January 20, 2022, at 10:00 a.m. “Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to timely file a Second Amended Complaint shall result in this action being dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute and/or failure to comply with a court order,” the ruling stated. 13, the defendants’ lawyers will have a further two weeks to file a reply to the new suit. the suit will be dismissed “without prejudice,” and the matter will be considered closed.
However, Judge Olguin’s dismissal was made “with leave to amend.” Therefore, although the lawsuit has been dismissed, Elden has been given a second chance to refile a new complaint – one which makes good the “defects” alleged in the defendants’ motion to dismiss, such as the allegation that the suit is time-barred. District Court in Central California, dismissed the case after Elden missed his deadline to file an opposition to the defendants’ motion to dismiss. Olguin, who was presiding over the case at the U.S. “Nevermind,” which celebrated its thirtieth anniversary last year, was released in 1991.
Two weeks ago, the’ attorneys for Grohl, Novoselic, Weddle, Love, Cobain, Nirvana, L.L.C., MCA Records, UMG Recordings, Inc., Universal Music Group, Inc., The David Geffen Company and Geffen Records jointly sought a dismissal of Elden’s lawsuit, stating Elden had “spent three decades profiting from his celebrity as the self-anointed ‘Nirvana Baby’” and the suit was time-barred. Elden’s lawsuit claimed the image on the cover was taken and used without his consent and the nudity amounts to an image of child abuse.Īs well as Grohl, Novoselic and Love, defendants to Elden’s lawsuit include Cobain, who died in 1994 music managers Guy Oseary and Heather Parry, who manage Cobain’s estate photographer Kirk Weddle art director Robert Fisher Nirvana’s original drummer Chad Channing (who was replaced by Grohl long before “Nevermind” was conceived of and released) and a variety of record companies (including some that are now defunct) that handled the album in some capacity since its release in 1991. Last year, Spencer Elden - the baby pictured naked on the front of the album - sued a number of individuals and companies associated with the record including Nirvana band members Dave Grohl and Krist Novoselic as well as Kurt Cobain’s widow Courtney Love, who is the executor of Cobain’s estate.
A judge has dismissed the lawsuit filed against the surviving members of Nirvana over the cover image of their iconic album “ Nevermind.”
0 kommentar(er)
