Nirvana Respond to Nevermind Artwork Lawsuit, Seek Dismissal

Music

Nirvana Respond to Nevermind Artwork Lawsuit, Seek Dismissal

A lawyer for Dave Grohl, Krist Novoselic, Courtney Love, and the estate of Kurt Cobain argues that Spencer Elden’s child pornography claims are “barred by the applicable statute of limitations”

Nirvanas Kurt Cobain Krist Novoselic and Dave Grohl

Nirvana’s Kurt Cobain, Krist Novoselic, and Dave Grohl, December 1992 (Gutchie Kojima/Shinko Music/Getty Images)

A lawyer for Nirvana has formally responded to a lawsuit regarding the band’s Nevermind artwork, as Billboard notes. The motion to dismiss was filed yesterday (December 22) in a California federal court. In the filing, the lawyer argues that plaintiff Spencer Elden’s claims are “barred by the applicable statute of limitations.” In addition, the lawyer writes, “Elden’s claim that the photograph on the Nevermind album cover is ‘child pornography’ is, on its face, not serious.”

Spencer Elden filed the lawsuit on August 24, accusing Nirvana of violating federal pornography laws and also accusing them of exploitation. The surviving members of Nirvana (Dave Grohl and Krist Novoselic), the estate of Kurt Cobain, Courtney Love, photographer Kirk Weddle, the labels that released Nevermind, and other parties were all named as defendants in the lawsuit.

In the motion to dismiss, the defendants’ lawyer says that the particular statutes the band is accused of violating come with a 10-year statute of limitations. “The period runs from the time the plaintiff reasonably discovers the later of either the ‘violation’ or the ‘injury’ that ‘forms the basis of the claim,’” the lawyer writes. Therefore, the lawyer argues, the statute of limitations has expired because Elden was aware of the album cover and photograph before August 2011. The filing reads:

[T]he Nevermind cover photograph was taken in 1991. It was world-famous by no later than 1992. 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. He has been fully aware of the facts of both the supposed “violation” and “injury” for decades.

After the lawsuit was filed, Elden’s legal team further explained the reasoning for the suit in interviews with Variety and The New York Times. In the years before the lawsuit, Elden had repeatedly participated in campaigns re-creating the cover image, in addition to getting the album’s titled tattooed on his chest. That enthusiasm had waned in more recent years, as Elden told GQ Australia in 2016.

A month after Elden filed his lawsuit, a 30th anniversary of Nevermind got announced. The collection was released on November 12 via Geffen and UMe.

Pitchfork has reached out to representatives and attorneys for Nirvana, as well as an attorney for Spencer Elden, for comment and additional information.

Read “A Brief History of Musicians Being Sued by Their Album Cover Subjects” on the Pitch.

Products You May Like

Articles You May Like

Meta Says App Stores Should Police Australia Under-16 Social Media Ban
Trump tariffs could reheat inflation if countries retaliate
Europe cannot finance Ukraine war if Trump pulls U.S. out of the conflict, Hungary’s Orban warns
Ozy Media Founder Carlos Watson Doc Debuting Before Fraud Sentencing
The Ayaneo 3 looks to be an improvement in nearly every way