• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Baby on Nevermind Nirvana, grown up sues for child pornagraphy. Come on Onion, keep up

Damn, was just going to post this and you beat me to it. 🙂

Definitely looking for a payday. The article I read mentions that he's hard up for money.

No way is that kiddy porn.

He's embarrassed by it? LOL. No one would know he's that baby unless he tells them he is. Probably tells people all the time because it's his one claim to fame.

Lawsuit is a joke. He's just angling for a settlement.
 
However, I will say this. The lawsuit is total crap but maybe they should pay him something anyway. He has a point that he was never consulted and never saw a dime even though the album sold bazillions of copies and made the band a massive amount of money. He probably sees the bogus lawsuit as a way to rectify that. Pay him $50K and be done with it?
 
woolfe9998 said:
However, I will say this. The lawsuit is total crap but maybe they should pay him something anyway. He has a point that he was never consulted and never saw a dime even though the album sold bazillions of copies and made the band a massive amount of money. He probably sees the bogus lawsuit as a way to rectify that. Pay him $50K and be done with it?
Click to expand...
I don't know, wouldn't that set precedent? We want to discourage frivolous lawsuits like this, not encourage it with a pay day. Is there any truth to his claim that his parents never consented to having the image used on the album cover?
 
woolfe9998 said:
However, I will say this. The lawsuit is total crap but maybe they should pay him something anyway. He has a point that he was never consulted and never saw a dime even though the album sold bazillions of copies and made the band a massive amount of money. He probably sees the bogus lawsuit as a way to rectify that. Pay him $50K and be done with it?
Click to expand...

He was a baby...he couldn't have given consent even if had understood the question...did his parents give consent? Did they get some ki d of compensation?
 
BoomerD said:
He was a baby...he couldn't have given consent even if had understood the question...did his parents give consent? Did they get some ki d of compensation?
Click to expand...

From the linked article, he alleged:
The filing claims Elden and his parents did not sign a release allowing the images to be used.
Click to expand...
 
Shouldn't he sue his parents? They signed the consent. The band should be the last defendants.

Sounds like a money grab. My guess the record company no longer exists. Even if you entertain the idea that would make more sense.
 
jcela_092116a_003.jpg
 
It is ironic, or perhaps, rather unironic, that the entire point of an album cover showing a baby swimming for a dollar bill on a fish hook is that we're a greedy, materialistic society and are indoctrinated early as to the importance and desirability of money.

And now the baby is all grown up, and damn it, he wants his cut!
 
Last edited:
woolfe9998 said:
It is ironic, or perhaps, rather unironic, that the entire point of an album cover showing a baby swimming for a dollar bill on a fish hook is that we're a greedy, materialistic society and are indoctrinated early as to the importance and desirability of money.

And now the baby is all grown up, and damn it, he want his cut!
Click to expand...
He did say in one article that he is an artist. Perhaps the lawsuit is performative art.
 
kt said:
From the linked article, he alleged:
Click to expand...

Oh?
also from the article:
Elden’s lawyer said that there were at least 40 or 50 photos taken at the time
Click to expand...


Pretty sure that he is full of shit that there was no consent. I am Willing to be there is a clause in the agreement that his parents had to sign authorizing any picture to be taken, much less 40 or 50, and usually those clauses state that the pictures become the property of the studio or company the pictures are for. IF non of that is true, then what was the purpose of the parents being there to get those 40 or 50 pictures taken of their baby boy? I guess he can sue his parents for his cut of the $200 they received.
 
BoomerD said:
I live about 25 miles from Cobain's childhood home...recently named a "historical site." Lots of buzz about it here too.
Click to expand...
Oh I'm sure. I thought about looking around at the Aberdeen area when I retired. It just seemed easier to stay where I'm at. If I did, it would be on any high ground around there. Tsunamis scare me.
Saw a projection/study. The very end of the Hood Canal (Belfair) is actually at risk.
 
hal2kilo said:
Oh I'm sure. I thought about looking around at the Aberdeen area when I retired. It just seemed easier to stay where I'm at. If I did, it would be on any high ground around there. Tsunamis scare me.
Saw a projection/study. The very end of the Hood Canal (Belfair) is actually at risk.
Click to expand...

I'm on the little sand spit known as Ocean Shores...My back yard backs up to a couple hundred yards of wetlands...then Grays Harbor.(the bay) we'd get hit from BOTH directions in a tsunami.
 
BoomerD said:
I'm on the little sand spit known as Ocean Shores...My back yard backs up to a couple hundred yards of wetlands...then Grays Harbor.(the bay) we'd get hit from BOTH directions in a tsunami.
Click to expand...
Been out there a few times. Mostly go further north and stay in Moclips or the casino if I go to the ocean.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top