Attorney for ‘Nirvana Baby’ Explains Why They Believe the ‘Nevermind’ Cover Is Child Porn

Variety

A jury has yet to vote, if the case should make it to court, on whether the former members of Nirvana and their associates sexually exploited a child by putting an unclothed 4-month-old boy on the cover of the classic 1991 album “Nevermind.” But the general public has done a lot of weighing in on the merits of the lawsuit filed by 30-year-old Spencer Elden over the image. And there’s a lot of sympathy for the fact that Elden’s family was only ever paid $200 for a photo seen on a reported 30 million album covers and untold further millions of merch items. That it was “child pornography,” though? That hasn’t been, and it’s safe to say still isn’t, a majority opinion in Kurt Cobain-loving America.

Elden’s lawyers, though, point out that this case isn’t being put to a popular vote — in their view, it will be decided by a jury they believe will favor their contention that the world-famous image constitutes the sexual exploitation of an infant who has spent the rest of his life trying to come to terms with it.

In the wake of the news of the lawsuit filed Tuesday in California’s federal court, Elden’s legal team is explaining the rationale behind the brief. (Reps for the defendants have so far not commented.) In case there’s any question over why the suit hits the child abuse angle so hard, as opposed to basic IP or rights issues, it should be noted that the New York-based Marsh Law Firm specializes in child sexual exploitation. Much of the public is expressing its cynicism about the lawsuit, but Maggie Mabie, an attorney handling the case who spoke with Variety on Wednesday, firmly believes in this case as part of their mission. (Elden himself is declining to comment.)

Find more information online here.

Filed Under  Child Pornography  News  Nirvana 

No Replies to "Attorney for ‘Nirvana Baby’ Explains Why They Believe the ‘Nevermind’ Cover Is Child Porn"


    Got something to say?

    Some html is OK