stepee Posted August 26, 2021 Share Posted August 26, 2021 1 minute ago, Komusha said: If actors get royalties for action figures and other merchandise then it's not crazy for him to feel like he should get something. Your argument doesn't hold water just because the baby isn't recognizable. It's still his likeness that is being used. I'm not saying that it caused him harm, just that it's a weird situation that he's in. Must be weird to see your baby penis everywhere. If you don't think it would be weird then why don't you go ahead and post pics of you as a naked baby. I mean, there's no harm in it, right? I mean, it I had baby pics of myself anywhere I was aware of, that seems like something I’d have done in GI! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stepee Posted August 26, 2021 Share Posted August 26, 2021 And if we are talking about just it I would want his situation of being the nirvana baby and not getting random money for it? Yes of course lol. I wouldn’t have to do anything and I could use that fact for social purposes for sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Vic20 Posted August 26, 2021 Share Posted August 26, 2021 IF my folks cared enough to document my youth (they did not) then I would be perfectly willing to let you all see my naked Vic1 caboose! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fizzzzle Posted August 26, 2021 Share Posted August 26, 2021 Me, too, but everyone who possessed baby pics of me is dead and the photos are probably in a landfill or in the attic of someone I've never met, so it'll never come to that! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finaljedi Posted August 27, 2021 Share Posted August 27, 2021 10 hours ago, Komusha said: If actors get royalties for action figures and other merchandise then it's not crazy for him to feel like he should get something. Your argument doesn't hold water just because the baby isn't recognizable. It's still his likeness that is being used. I'm not saying that it caused him harm, just that it's a weird situation that he's in. Must be weird to see your baby penis everywhere. If you don't think it would be weird then why don't you go ahead and post pics of you as a naked baby. I mean, there's no harm in it, right? Actors get merchandising money because their agents make that part of the deal from the jump and their portrayal of a character drives those sales. His picture didn’t drive sales of Nevermind and his parents took a $200 deal. Personally I don’t give a damn if my baby Dick ends up on the Internet, no one can connect it back to me. No one runs into him on the street and recognizes him as the infant in the pool. Sure it’s weird, but not sue them all weird. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spawn_of_Apathy Posted August 27, 2021 Share Posted August 27, 2021 18 hours ago, Komusha said: If actors get royalties for action figures and other merchandise then it's not crazy for him to feel like he should get something. Your argument doesn't hold water just because the baby isn't recognizable. It's still his likeness that is being used. I'm not saying that it caused him harm, just that it's a weird situation that he's in. Must be weird to see your baby penis everywhere. If you don't think it would be weird then why don't you go ahead and post pics of you as a naked baby. I mean, there's no harm in it, right? actors get anything for merchandising when it is in their contract. Carrie Fisher famously joked that they signed their likeness away to Lucas who made a tone on merchandising for Star Wars, that she has to pay George every time she looks in the mirror in the morning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kamusha Posted August 27, 2021 Share Posted August 27, 2021 I already acknowledged in my original posts that I understand that actors signed a contract guaranteeing them royalties. What I'm saying is that it wouldn't be that weird for the kid to receive the same, except for the fact that his parents made a shitty deal for him that kept him from doing so. I feel like y'all are missing my nuance here. I understand he's not legally entitled to anything, but SHOULD he be? I personally feel like ethically he should. It's an unfortunate situation, but he's allowed to feel entitled to some sort of payment, even if legally he isn't obligated to one. You can disagree with me all you want because we're entitled to our opinions, but it's really for y'all to explain to me how contracts work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LazyPiranha Posted August 27, 2021 Share Posted August 27, 2021 Yeah, it reminds me of the Witcher situation, although that’s a court in a totally different country with different laws. If I remember correctly the whole lawsuit hinged on the fact that Polish law allows for relief when a contract leads to something so wildly successful that no one could have possibly predicted it at the time and it would be unfair to not share some of that wild success with one of the parties involved. It feels like a ethically shitty situation all around. There’s no way of telling what part the image specifically played in the enduring legacy of the image or just being associated with the album itself, but it is weird that two decades later people are still routinely printing that image and making money off of it. It would be one thing if it was purely album art where people are theoretically buying it incidentally, but if they’re selling posters and shirts that’s a somewhat different story. I seriously doubt that any of the nonsense he’s claiming as damages is true, but it is bizarre to imagine that someone could be making money off of a picture of you that you never agreed to because your parents wanted $200 before you could talk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stepee Posted August 27, 2021 Share Posted August 27, 2021 Ya, I don’t think anyone is really arguing here per se, we are all in agreement that legally he isn’t entitled to anything and that the specific reasons he lists are nonsense so there isn’t really an argument here, just an opinion on if dude ethically should be compensated or not. That said I think coming at this the way he is with all of the nonsense and basically trauma larping certainly helps skew my opinion that na dude isn’t entitled to anything ethically. I think the inherent ability to drum up press about himself and other such social gifts he received as part of this is payment enough. I think the only reason I care enough to post here about this actually is just because as someone currently laying in a hospital bed in the trauma ward suffering intense pain and some permanent physical loss, something completely forced upon me against my will by someone else, I find it kind of offensive. If he really needs the money and all he has to offer is this piece of trivia, then he could probably get more creative with it. Like what about selling a service to rich gen xers at their birthday parties? “Have the genuine nirvana baby swim in your pool at your birthday party! Only 50k!” Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 27, 2021 Share Posted August 27, 2021 I like when people who are definitely not lawyers get into the weeds of what a person may or may not be entitled to in civil litigation. Go talk to your favorite trial lawyer and ask questions about the dumb awards they have won for clients. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stepee Posted August 27, 2021 Share Posted August 27, 2021 I mean of course, he might get some money, he might not, who knows. I just don’t think he deserves anything as far as my personal opinion and seems like an entitled twat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keyser_Soze Posted January 5, 2022 Share Posted January 5, 2022 'Nevermind' Baby's Child Porn Lawsuit Against Nirvana Dismissed WWW.ROLLINGSTONE.COM The child porn lawsuit against Nirvana, filed by the 'Nevermind' baby Spencer Elden, has been dismissed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kal-El814 Posted January 5, 2022 Share Posted January 5, 2022 Feels like a missed opportunity to not say that the courts told this kid never mind. 1 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anathema- Posted January 6, 2022 Share Posted January 6, 2022 On 1/4/2022 at 7:52 PM, Kal-El814 said: Feels like a missed opportunity to not say that the courts told this kid never mind. Oh well, whatever. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LazyPiranha Posted January 6, 2022 Share Posted January 6, 2022 On 1/4/2022 at 7:52 PM, Kal-El814 said: Feels like a missed opportunity to not say that the courts told this kid never mind. Please, please. His filing was dismissed before trial because he failed to respond to a motion to dismiss so it never even got to a hearing. The proper joke would be “Nirvana Child Porn Lawsuit Dies In Utero” 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kal-El814 Posted January 6, 2022 Share Posted January 6, 2022 3 minutes ago, LazyPiranha said: Please, please. His filing was dismissed before trial because he failed to respond to a motion to dismiss so it never even got to a hearing. The proper joke would be “Nirvana Child Porn Lawsuit Dies In Utero” Maybe, hey, wait, you have no real complaint? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uaarkson Posted January 6, 2022 Share Posted January 6, 2022 3 hours ago, Anathema- said: Oh well, whatever. missed this at first Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uaarkson Posted January 6, 2022 Share Posted January 6, 2022 2 hours ago, LazyPiranha said: Please, please. His filing was dismissed before trial because he failed to respond to a motion to dismiss so it never even got to a hearing. The proper joke would be “Nirvana Child Porn Lawsuit Dies In Utero” “Nirvana Child Porn Lawsuit Dies After Shotgun Blast To Face” Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silentbob Posted January 6, 2022 Share Posted January 6, 2022 They should at least give him the dollar bill on the fishing line to help pay for his failed legal bills. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keyser_Soze Posted September 8, 2022 Share Posted September 8, 2022 Nirvana wins dismissal of lawsuit over naked baby on 'Nevermind' album cover WWW.NBCNEWS.COM Spencer Elden, 31, alleged that a photo taken when he was 4 months old constituted child pornography. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted September 8, 2022 Author Share Posted September 8, 2022 wasn't it already dismissed in january Nevermind baby’s child-porn lawsuit against Nirvana dismissed by judge ARSTECHNICA.COM Elden can amend complaint but 10-year statute of limitations may doom his case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nokra Posted September 8, 2022 Share Posted September 8, 2022 2 minutes ago, Jason said: wasn't it already dismissed in january Nevermind baby’s child-porn lawsuit against Nirvana dismissed by judge ARSTECHNICA.COM Elden can amend complaint but 10-year statute of limitations may doom his case. omg old Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted September 8, 2022 Author Share Posted September 8, 2022 23 minutes ago, Nokra said: omg old People are saying Keyser is a necrophiliac. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keyser_Soze Posted September 8, 2022 Share Posted September 8, 2022 It was dismissed twice! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.