An appellate court has ruled that the case can now move forward involving the iconic cover of Nirvana's 1991 album, Nevermind according to court documents obtained by Billboard. The case was originally dismissed in 2022.
Spencer Elden, who appeared as a nude baby on the cover, had originally filed a lawsuit alleging federal child pornography violations. On September 3, 2022, U.S. District Judge Fernando Olguin issued a ruling saying that Elden's lawsuit, which claimed that Nirvana sexually exploited him, was filed too late, as it exceeded the 10-year statute of limitations.
Judge Olguin ultimately ruled:
In short, because it is undisputed that [Elden] did not file his complaint within ten years after he discovered a violation…the court concludes that his claim is untimely.
On Thursday, December 21st, 2023 however, Judge Sandra Segal Ikuta of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has overruled this decision, stating that each republication of the album, including the 30th-anniversary reissue in 2021, could constitute a new "injury" against Elden.
The judge wrote:
Victims of child pornography may suffer a new injury upon the republication of the pornographic material. This conclusion is consistent with the Supreme Court's view that every viewing of child pornography is a repetition of the victim's abuse.
The decision doesn't imply victory for Elden but allows the case to return to a lower court for further consideration. Nirvana and their associates maintain that the cover image is not child pornography and are prepared to defend against the lawsuit.
The album's ubiquitous cover, featuring a nude infant chasing a dollar in a pool, raised questions about its interpretation and legality. Elden contends that the image represents a prohibited display under federal child pornography statutes, while Nirvana's defense emphasizes Elden's prior awareness of and public association with his role on the album cover.
The court wrote in its ruling:
The online dissemination of child pornography haunts victims long after their original images or videos are created. As the Supreme Court has explained, the victim's knowledge of publication of the visual material increases the emotional and psychic harm suffered by the child.
If a victim learns a defendant has distributed child pornography and does not sue, but then later learns the defendant has done so again many years later, the statute of limitations… does not prevent the plaintiff from bringing a claim based on that new injury.
35 Comments
Related News
