“Masha’s Law or makes it clear that the statute of limitations restarts claims each time UMG reproduces, distributes, or possesses Spencer’s Nirvana cover image.
This is common for all of our clients who are victims of actively traded child pornography, regardless of how long ago the image was created. Child pornography is a “forever crime” – any distribution of or profits earned from any sexually explicit image of a child not only creates longstanding liability but it also breeds lifelong trauma. We cannot continue to ignore is that the image of Elden, at four months old, is actively distributed and constitutes the legal definition of child pornography according to the Dost factors. Nirvana and UMG’s motion to dismiss focuses on their past conduct and ignores their ongoing distribution, especially with the 30-year Nevermind anniversary and profit margins. “In 1991, Nirvana exploited Spencer’s inability to consent as an infant, and today, the band and Universal Music Group (UMG) continue to prioritize profits over our client Spencer Elden’s right to consent, to have privacy, and to feel dignity. Lewis, and James Marsh of the Marsh Law Firm, issued the following statement to SPIN: He also alleges that the defendants “knowingly benefited and continue to benefit from their participation in Spencer’s commercial exploitation.”Įlden’s attorneys, Margaret Mabie, Robert Y. Elden also claimed that he “has suffered and will continue to suffer lifelong damages” as a result of the cover. In the suit, Elden alleged that as a four-month-old baby, he could not give permission for his image to be used on the cover and that his legal guardians didn’t give consent for its use either. The initial suit filed by Elden came a month before Nevermind‘s 30th anniversary. “A brief examination of the photograph, or Elden’s own conduct (not to mention the photograph’s presence in the homes of millions of Americans who, on Elden’s theory, are guilty of felony possession of child pornography) makes that clear.” “Elden’s claim that the photograph on the Nevermind album cover is ‘child pornography’ is, on its face, not serious,” the Nirvana estate also said. The Nirvana estate also argued that this isn’t a case of child pornography. He has been fully aware of the facts of both the supposed ‘violation’ and ‘injury’ for decades.” “Long before 2011, as Elden has pled, Elden knew about the photograph, and knew that he (and not someone else) was the baby in the photograph. It was world-famous by no later than 1992,” the filing said. “But the Nevermind cover photograph was taken in 1991. They also stated that the statute of limitations for the suit expired over a decade ago. “Elden has spent three decades profiting from his celebrity as the self-anointed ‘Nirvana Baby,’” the band’s estate said in the filing. District Court in Central California, the Nirvana estate fired back at Elden and the case. Remember when Spencer Elden, the baby pictured on the cover of Nevermind, sued Nirvana alleging “commercial sexual exploitation” of a minor? The case elicited groans and outrage from Nirvana fans, but the band didn’t issue a statement on the case until now.Īccording to Billboard, on Wednesday in a new filing at U.S.
0 kommentar(er)
