Yes, ironic, given my dig at the lawyers who filed this. This is a losing case, and they didn’t even bother to spell check Kurt Cobain’s name to make sure it was spelled correctly throughout the pleadings.Įdited for clarity. The photo of the naked baby is a symbol in a commentary on society and greed, not something designed to appeal to prurient interests or arouse sexual gratification. Spencer Elden, the naked baby on the cover of Nirvanas iconic 'Nevermind' album, is suing the band and Kurt Cobains estate for child sexual exploitation. The article discusses the photo shoot and the steps of adding the dollar bill and editing the photo to make the album cover. Their argument is undercut by the article they reference in their pleadings. A case filed Tuesday alleges that the grunge rock band engaged in commerial child pornography when it used a photo of a naked baby on the cover of its iconic album Nevermind in 1991. The pleadings reference the relevant federal statutes the define child pornography and related crimes, as well as a seminal case ( Dost) that federal courts use to determine whether an image is child pornography. Spencer Elden, who was photographed nude as an infant and appears on the cover of Nirvana’s Nevermind album, is suing the band over the image. Heres what we know: The ‘Nirvana Baby has until January 13 to refile the child pornography suit. Nirvanas Nevermind cover art lawsuit was just dismissed. There is a link to the pleadings in the Pitchfork article that accompanies this thread. Nirvanas Nevermind cover art lawsuit was just dismissed. I am a lawyer, and you’re correct that the plaintiff will have to prove that the cover photo is child pornography.
0 kommentar(er)
