Nirvana: After her puzzling complaint, Nevermind’s baby gets screwed by the courts!

Spencer Elden did not get what he expected from justice. Widely criticized on the Web following his complaint filed in August 2021 in a Los Angeles court for child pornography because of the photo of him, then a naked baby in a swimming pool, on the cover of Nevermind (1991) from the Nirvana group, he was dismissed.

Monday January 3, 2022, justice therefore sent Spencer Elden to ball because of a judicial micmac, relates the Guardian. And the young man can only blame him. Indeed, his legal team had until December 30 to oppose the opposing party’s request to reject the complaint. As Spencer Elden’s legal representatives did not meet the deadline, the judge ruled. But it is not over yet.

He has thus been rejected, for the moment, of his request for compensation, he who claimed no less than 150,000 dollars from the seventeen people named in his complaint! The judge in charge of the case, Fernando M. Olguin, chose to dismissed the case “with leave to amend”. Thereby, the complainant can appeal and has ten days for it. But by trying to have his request reconsidered, he will have to pay more legal fees with the final risk of losing permanently and thus having spent money for nothing … For their part, Nirvana’s lawyers have until January 27 to respond.

Spencer Elden, who was only 4 months old when the photo of him as a baby was taken, was obviously hoping to make a lot of money from the affair and didn’t hesitate to make a fool of himself by attacking the heirs. – Nirvana’s rights for child pornography. He believed that the photo showing him naked amounted to sexual exploitation … In 2016, however, he had willingly agreed to replay the cult photo of Nevermind, sold 30 million copies worldwide. “Elden has spent three decades enjoying his self-proclaimed ‘baby Nirvana’ notoriety“, did not fail to tackle the lawyers of the opposing team.

Claiming to be a victim of trauma following the media coverage of this photograph, Spencer Elden wanted financial compensation. The complaint advanced in particular that the defendants had “knowingly produced, owned, marketed and promoted child pornography featuring Spencer Elden, and knowingly received money in return.

source site-2