Nirvana say new lawsuit over ‘Nevermind’ baby cover is ‘strike three’
Lawyers acting on behalf of Spencer Elden accused Nirvana of ‘[leveraging] the lascivious nature of his image’
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Lawyers acting for Nirvana have asked a judge to dismiss the second amended complaint filed by Spencer Elden over their Nevermind cover art.
Elden, who appeared on the artwork for the band’s second album when he was a baby, initially sued Nirvana in August last year for “[failing] to take reasonable steps to protect Spencer and prevent his widespread sexual exploitation and image trafficking”.
After that lawsuit was dismissed by a judge last month, Elden was given a deadline of 13 January to pursue the case and file a second amended complaint.
Lawyers acting on behalf of Elden are now accusing former members of the band of “[leveraging] the lascivious nature of his image” to promote Nevermind “while earning, at a minimum, tens of millions of dollars in the aggregate”.
Elden would “continue to suffer damages as long as the violations described above persist”, the lawsuit continued.
Rolling Stone reports that Nirvana’s lawyers are asking for Elden’s amended complaint to be dismissed without prejudice, meaning he would not be able to refile again.
“For Elden, this is strike three. This case must end,” the lawyers wrote in their motion.
“The time has run. Elden’s decision to not sue these defendants for the past 30 years, despite his decades-long knowledge of their same and unvaried conduct, is dispositive of his claim. It is as simple as that.”
The Independent has contacted Elden’s legal representative for comment.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments