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. “In 1991, Nirvana exploited Spencer’s inability to consent as an infant, and today, the band and Universal Music Group (UMG) continue to prioritize profits over our client Spencer Elden’s right to consent, to have privacy, and to feel dignity. Lewis, and James Marsh of the Marsh Law Firm, issued the following statement to SPIN: He also alleges that the defendants “knowingly benefited and continue to benefit from their participation in Spencer’s commercial exploitation.”Įlden’s attorneys, Margaret Mabie, Robert Y.

Elden also claimed that he “has suffered and will continue to suffer lifelong damages” as a result of the cover. In the suit, Elden alleged that as a four-month-old baby, he could not give permission for his image to be used on the cover and that his legal guardians didn’t give consent for its use either. The initial suit filed by Elden came a month before Nevermind‘s 30th anniversary. “A brief examination of the photograph, or Elden’s own conduct (not to mention the photograph’s presence in the homes of millions of Americans who, on Elden’s theory, are guilty of felony possession of child pornography) makes that clear.” “Elden’s claim that the photograph on the Nevermind album cover is ‘child pornography’ is, on its face, not serious,” the Nirvana estate also said. The Nirvana estate also argued that this isn’t a case of child pornography. Also Read 30 Signature Guitars for Modern Artists

Nirvana nevermind cover lawsuit