Nirvana clap back and the Nevermind baby’s lawsuit

Attorneys for the estate of Nirvana are seeking dismissal of the Nevermind baby’s lawsuit and have called it ‘absurd’.

Attorneys for the surviving members of Nirvana asked a judge to dismiss the lawsuit filed in August by the ‘Nevermind baby’, Spencer Elden, on the basis that his argument, that the cover of the 1991 album Nevermind constitutes child pornography, is decades too late and is just plain silly.

The motion was filed last week on behalf of Dave Grohl, Krist Novoselic, Courtney Love (executor of the Kirk Cobain estate), Kirk Weddle (the cover photographer), UMG Recordings and Nirvana LLC.

Spencer Elden. Credit: John Chapple/ SplashNews

According to Nirvana’s representation, Elden  “has spent three decades profiting from his celebrity as the self-anointed ‘Nirvana Baby.’ He has re-enacted the photograph in exchange for a fee, many times; he has had the album title ‘Nevermind’ 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.”

Elden’s claim that the photograph on the ‘Nevermind’ album cover is ‘child pornography’ is, on its face, not serious. 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.” the attorney went on.

While the lawyer, Bert H. Deixler pointed out that even though this shouldn’t be an issue due to the aforementioned reasoning, the lawsuit was filed long after the events. Deixler clarified that there is a 10-year statute of limitations on filing a lawsuit involving alleged child pornography, starting from the date the plaintiff could have reasonably been aware of the pornographic use.

And as we all know, Spencer Elden has been aware of the images taken for well over a decade after turning 18 and he has continued to celebrate himself for his trivial inclusion.

In response, Elden’s lawyers issued a statement to Variety: “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. 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.”

Nirvana’s attorneys still seem confident that this will be pushed aside, there is no doubt that Elden’s claims will fail on the merits. This Motion, however, does not address the merits. Rather, it addresses a separate problem. Elden’s claims fail, at the outset, because they are time-barred. Elden asserts two causes of action, one under the federal statute that permits victims of certain federal child pornography criminal offenses to sue for civil damages … and another under the federal statute that permits victims of certain trafficking crimes to sue for civil damages … Neither cause of action is timely. The Section 2255 claim has a ten-year limitations period and cannot reach an injury that Elden knew about before 2011.”