the dude's lawyer also said the superimposing of a dollar bill on the cover made him seem like a sex worker.

my eyes are rolling out of my skull.

Such a money grab, absolutely insane

South Park ‘PC Baby’ plot gets literal

over/under the case is just thrown out?

I would probably offer him $5,000 to fuck off forever.

still a baby

lol fuck this dude

LOL. What?? This has to be the most brain dead thing I’ve seen in awhile

It's a money grab but he's always had mixed feelings on the photo.

He's been chill about this for the longest time, now suddenly its unacceptable. The shit people will do when they're desperate for money lol

He recreated the photo like half a dozen times most recently in 2016.

I thought this type of thing was settled like 30 years ago.

If this guys goal was to lose a frivolous lawsuit and get clowned on the internet he’s halfway there

"The baby, who now goes by Spencer Elden"
lmao

the boss baby

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E9p2jN8XMAIDJJ3?format=jpg&name=small

one the one hand i don't like this guy taking advantage of the 'child pornography' claim to desecrate the name of the sacred members of Nirvana.

on the other, he only got 200 bucks for that picture. so you play ya hustle Spence

I mean, I'm almost surprised something like this didn't happen sooner.. but this is fucking hilarious.

The dude has been recreating the cover for posterity over and over again so that people DON'T forget it was him.

Cupid suing Michelangelo, Rafael, Donatello, and Leonardo da Vinci, as well as their four correspondent ninja turtles, for depicting the immortal son of Venus with his dick out

surely he's doing this for the moolah

This is weird as hell. I mean, a baby can't give consent to this, fair. But I have a hard time believing he is genuine about this

Tender age in bloom

Oh my

Some fucking money-grubbing douche of a lawyer clearly noticed the 30th anniversary was coming up and so decided to approach this guy like "yo, Spence, you realize that you could sue Nirvana for like, MILLIONS of mighty fine US DOLLARS, right? Step into my office....."

Not only has this dude recreated the album cover on no less than three occasions, he has "Nevermind" tattooed across his chest. He also did an interview with GQ that I think really sums up what a piece of shit he is.

GQ: In the past you’ve said it was cool. When did that change?

Just a few months ago, when 
I was reaching out to Nirvana to see if they wanted to be part of my art show. I was getting referred to their managers and their lawyers. Why am I still on their cover if 
I’m not that big of a deal?

GQ: Why’d you reach out to them?

I was trying to do an art show with the photographer who took the picture. I was asking if they wanted to put a piece of art in the fucking thing.

...

GQ: Has it affected your relationships at all?

Totally. Everyone thinks you’re making money from it. You’ll hook up with a hot chick, and then they figure out you’re not making any money from it and they’ll dump you.

He's mad the band doesn't want to be his friend and that he doesn't get royalties for a deal his parents made. I hope they absolutely bury him beyond belief.
The irony that the album cover has come full circle for him is quite incredible though.

What a dickhead.

Also what an age to be in, where reality feels like a live-action satire.

The album art is actually pretty fitting considering the situation now

All things sacred must turn to trash as time moves forward apparently.

^ Xing

I take it back. Being a bitter dickhead because a band that happened to select a photo of you THIRTY YEARS AGO doesn't want to buddy up for an art show, so that he can then blatantly promote his art show with the buzzwords "guess what? I'm collabing with Nirvana" is 100% better.

Also; "Totally. Everyone thinks you’re making money from it. You’ll hook up with a hot chick, and then they figure out you’re not making any money from it and they’ll dump you."

This is fucking hilarious. Wow.

Yesterday's satire is today's reality.

No wonder the South Park guys signed a 900 million dollar deal with Viacom, they'll never run out of material in our modern world.

1. i've heard this guy embrace his status as the nirvana baby in like 2-3 different nirvana/nevermind docs.
2. his parents signed the contracts he's getting nothing. (heres his parents explaining how the cover was made https://youtu.be/G1AIlnbHFVE?t=138)
3. twitterverse like "he's doing this after being turned down permission to do an artshow"
4. the irony of the cover is now priceless

I was gonna say this guy probably got dunked on daily in high school for this but the fact that it was for a nirvana album probably made it so that he was the cool kid

"4. the irony of the cover is now priceless"
lmfao

shit blasts the doors wide open for every baby who's ever been made naked

Whos next? The pregnant angel from In Utero cover?

lol

"This is weird as hell. I mean, a baby can't give consent to this, fair"

Yeah... This is a frivolous lawsuit that will be thrown out in 5 seconds, but I always feel extremely uncomfortable seeing album covers with naked children on them. Like... You can't just come up with something else? Like I don't want to see a naked child when I pull out my Nevermind CD to jam. Perhaps maybe this will influence the rest of the band to make a brand new cover of some sort, cause he's clearly shown he has 0 respect for it.

I mean, people are super weird about nudity, and that's annoying, and who ever says the cover is sexualization of a child is self reporting, and I don't mind the cover, but ... you know, the child has no saying in this. It's the same reason I'm against circumcision of children

"I mean, people are super weird about nudity, and that's annoying, and who ever says the cover is sexualization of a child is self reporting, and I don't mind the cover, but ... you know, the child has no saying in this. It's the same reason I'm against circumcision of children"

Yeah... like in no way is this cover sexual at all. Anybody with a functioning brain can tell. My biggest issue of course is consent, but I also just don't like seeing naked children. It's gross tbqh

The guy already has "Nevermind" tattoed on his chest, guess he's about to add "paid my mortgage" below.

Today we're gonna watch Three Men and a Baby with Ted Danson and Tom Selleck directed by Leonard Nimoy, because some of you have never had to change a baby's diaper and it shows.

There's no mourning what God gave ya in your born state you puritan pukes

"There's no mourning what God gave ya in your born state you puritan pukes"

This just in...

Me not wanting to see naked children makes me a puritan.

ok

@caliggy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAlaVnDyzIA

Of course it's a Simpsons skit... ugh

: )

I can only name a couple of moments where I thought that show was funny. Not even episodes... just moments.

From my understanding cal, the album art is supposed to challenge that very mindset. Why are you disgusted when we see a baby dick hanging out?

you call that a 'dick'?

"The lawsuit cites a passage from writer Michael Azerrad’s biography 'Come as You Are: The Story of Nirvana,' in which it was said that the then-label wanted to use a different image, but Cobain insisted, allegedly saying that the only alteration he would consider making was covering the infant’s penis with a sticker that would read: 'If you’re offended by this, you must be a closet pedophile.'"

LOL what a fucking blatant cashgrab, this guy is full of shit. He recreates the picture multiple times, goes on about how glad he is to be part of something iconic for years, then decides that actually his consent was violated as an infant because his wiener was visible on an album cover. It's not like it was even remotely sexualized like that one Scorpions album cover. Kurt said it best 30 years ago: "If you’re offended by this, you must be a closet pedophile."

Too bad he didn’t drowned along with any sicko that finds the album art to be enticing

"From my understanding cal, the album art is supposed to challenge that very mindset. Why are you disgusted when we see a baby dick hanging out?"

How about we just not venture into that territory. I doubt that's a debate worth having that will solve any of society's ills so why cross that bridge?

"It's not like it was even remotely sexualized like that one Scorpions album cover. Kurt said it best 30 years ago: "If you’re offended by this, you must be a closet pedophile.""

So I can't be uncomfortable without being offended? Fuck off. Not everything is Black and White.

Someone lost their job/money during the pandemic....

caliggy based

question: how would you guys feel about this if the guy on the cover had always been against it, and always maintained that it violated his consent and never got the tattoo or recreated it or any of that?

why does he have a NEVERMIND chest tat????

People that say he only got 200 dollars out of it. He literally got an entire life of free clout and molded his entire personality around it. Kid would’ve been a nobody, and the way he pays it back is to literally disrespect the band at the max level possible.

LMAO Twitter is dunking on this dude.

"Kurt said it best 30 years ago: "If you’re offended by this, you must be a closet pedophile.""

That doesn't even make sense.

@Colton
It's shitty in that circumstance and I'd feel sorry for him then. If his parents signed a contract for all rights waived then he's fucked though. A judge isn't going to ban an album art because he wants to revoke it, it's already culturally iconic.

"Why are you disgusted when we see a baby dick hanging out?" [2]

I get not liking artwork with nudity on it when it is sexualized, but if it isn't I don't see the problem at all

I couldn't care any less if at the beach there's a mom changing her two year's old swimsuit. It's not like being bothered by it (or not being bothered by it) means you're a closet pedo of course, but even without trying to fall into the "nudity is art, the human body is beautiful" kind of argument, it is also true that stuff like "I don't like it, I hope bands/labels stop doing this" sounds more like nineteenth-century mentality than anything else. It outright sounds like nudity is something that offends you and that messes with some kind of anachronistic values

I thought this article was fake at first

@Parallels I think it raises a question then about whether someone initially embracing or not taking issue with what could be regarded as a sex crime necessarily means they’re in the wrong to feel differently later. Don’t get me wrong, this guy could easily be looking for a payday and nothing more. But it’s hard to say that just because he was ok with it for a long time that means he was not wronged in any way. Because you see people apply the same logic to victims of abuse who stay with their partner after the abuse occurs and then come forward with allegations afterward

I really doubt that’s the case with this guy cause his reasoning of “hot chicks ghost me when they find out I don’t get paid for this!” is absolutely ridiculous lol. But it’s something to consider

More people have seen Spencer's penis than almost any individual, I'd imagine. Not terribly related, but just a thought.

" not taking issue with what could be regarded as a sex crime"

thing is, it cannot

This dude will now be forever hated by the same Nirvana fans that once had his back forever. What a total moron

Shitty, but I bet the attorney is the one that proposed this idea, probably convinced him to do it for easy money.

If you think this is child porn, it says a lot more about you than anyone else.

$$$

"How about we just not venture into that territory. I doubt that's a debate worth having that will solve any of society's ills so why cross that bridge?"

It's not about fixing societies ill's but examining how we view album art like this. The point parallels tried to make to you is why should you be disgusted by children's genitalia? You wouldn't go "ew gross baby dick!" If if you were changing your kids diaper. The Simpsons quote was to reinforce this. You said yourself, anyone can tell this isn't sexual at all so what's with the fuss?

@colt I think the Virgin Killer cover is a pretty good example of what you're talking about. I don't know the situation around it but it's way easier to make a case like you suggest if it was that artwork.

wait... how can a baby sue kurt cobain??? not only is kurt cobain dead... but that's a baby!!! they can barely even talk!

“ But it’s hard to say that just because he was ok with it for a long time that means he was not wronged in any way. ”

More “I see both sides” pseudo-intellectual nonsense from colton

"I think the Virgin Killer cover is a pretty good example of what you're talking about. I don't know the situation around it but it's way easier to make a case like you suggest if it was that artwork."

Agreed. There can be a debate on Virgin Killer's case. Though it isn't a case of CP

Nevermind on the other hand. There's no sexualization whatsoever

it's literally just a baby about to die via drowning, nothin sus about it

Even Scorpions disowned that album cover btw. They say it was pushed on them by the record label and it completely ignores the lyrics of the title track which say "time is the virgin killer".

Strange coincidence that that album was in the news the other day because a Swedish website has banned it

"Even Scorpions disowned that album cover btw. They say it was pushed on them by the record label and it completely ignores the lyrics of the title track which say "time is the virgin killer"."

Yeah I don't think anyone with a couple of working neurons has ever blamed the scorps for that artwork. It was certainly a label move

"Strange coincidence that that album was in the news the other day because a Swedish website has banned it"

I was going to comment on that if the debate went on that road. The swedish case is the only one in which a case like this is considered CP. The jurisprudence in general and the legal doctrine however, agree on these cases not being child pornography. If this wasn't the case, any store owner that sells the album or any person that buys it could be charged with possesion of CP which we can all agree would be ridiculous.

In this kind of crimes context is an extremly important factor. While it only applies to civil law countries (mainly continental europe and latin america), most of the time the classification of the illegal conduct (I don't think there is an exact english translation to the concept of "tipificación" since both the US and UK are common law countries) is that a sexual behaviour is necessary for these cases to constitute a crime. It is this requirement that forbids the police to arrest your grandma because she has a picture of you naked as a baby in a bathtub.

This of course applies easily to cases like Nevermind. Virgin Killer on the other hand, which has an obvious "sexual concept" behind it, is more of a gray area. Consensus (besides Sweden) is that it does not constitute a crime pretty much because of what I said earlier: It would automatically mean that you could be prosecuted for owining a copy of the album. Virgin Killer's case, while it could be argued that it is a tasteless one, is still taken as an artistic move and not a felony

The US and UK's common law system however is different. In theory you can go to court for pretty much anything, wether it is reclaiming ownership of the moon because somebody sold it to your grandpa 70 years ago or, in this case, saying that Nevermind's artwork constitutes CP. But at least in theory, this case is just bollocks for the general jurisprudence and legal doctrine

Thanks for coming to my TED talk

you call that a 'dick'?

This is what this lawsuit is about. This guy's little puffer being on the cover of one of the most popular rock albums of all time. Guy doesn't want his shit all out there like that. Good thing this lawsuit won't call any more attention to his lack of cock.

Yeah, the wiki says the girl was the photographers daughter/niece and she hasn't come out against it like the band has. 100% on the label.

Also are people really dick shaming a baby?

“Also are people really dick shaming a baby?“

“Yes I am” - Colton’s mom

https://www.reddit.com/r/IASIP/comments/pbga50/the_consensus_of_everyone_regarding_the_guy_suing/

FirstStrikeisdeadly basically hit the nail on the head here. Dude is so blatanly cash grabbing. He got annoyed because nirvana wouldnt come to his "art show" lol.

https://i.imgur.com/UdWUFdE.jpg

lolwhat

T-shirts have already begun printing en masse

Guy's more of a baby now than he was in the album cover photo. I don't see it as child porn, but it's easy to see how a whole wing and maybe a leg of society will

Sexual or not, I'm allowed to not like seeing naked children. I'm allowed to think the cover is a bit fucking gross, sexual or not. Y'all don't care? Fine. But don't try to say I'm in the wrong when it's clearly a subjective thing.

"It's not about fixing societies ill's but examining how we view album art like this. The point parallels tried to make to you is why should you be disgusted by children's genitalia? You wouldn't go "ew gross baby dick!" If if you were changing your kids diaper. The Simpsons quote was to reinforce this. You said yourself, anyone can tell this isn't sexual at all so what's with the fuss?"

It's not about sexual shit, it's about me being uncomfortable seeing naked fucking children on a musical album cover. I don't give a shit about it's "artistic statements", I don't give a shit what Kurt Cobain said to justify making this cover. I. Don't. Want. To. See. Naked. Children. On. Album. Covers.

It's just how I am and how I feel. I'm not fucking protesting outside of the fucking building to have it banned or changed. All I said was the cover made me uncomfortable and that it wouldn't be such a bad idea to maybe change it since clearly the dude doesn't care about it either if he's willing to sue. All I said was that, and y'all immediately jumped to this album's defense ready to die on this fucking hill of all things. I never said you guys had to hate it, I never went at anybody. So why am I getting shit on?

Dude I didn't say it, Kurt Cobains own words are that "if youre offended by it you're a closet paedophile". It's fine to me that you don't like it, that's your prerogative, Kurt might... Think you're a peado tho

" I don't give a shit about it's "artistic statements", I don't give a shit what Kurt Cobain said to justify making this cover."

As I said. I don't give a fuck what Kurt Cobain thought. I disagree. I'm not obligated to agree with the dude just cause everyone else thinks he's a genius. And again, I'm not offended. If I was, I would immediately call for it to be banned or changed or some shit, which I have not done.

"So why am I getting shit on?"

Because people are allowed to voice their opinions about your opinions about stuff just the same as you're allowed to voice your opinion about stuff. That's kiiiiiinda how opinions work.

I think it should be kept the same, but like you I don't really care if they change it and give the baby the dollar

why does caliggyjack say the f word so much

This has gotten way out of hand.

Spence wants this. Don’t let Spence win.

dude has a baby dick

give the baby the dollar (2)

this baby was a failed abortion

"It's just how I am and how I feel. I'm not fucking protesting outside of the fucking building to have it banned or changed. All I said was the cover made me uncomfortable and that it wouldn't be such a bad idea to maybe change it "

But Caliggy, didn't you change Virgin Killer's original artwork for the censored version because it annoyed you? That does sound like you're trying to impose your opinion on others. I get you don't like it, but judging by your comments in here it does seem that something like this is really a big issue for you. Like, it's ok if you don't like it, but I don't think it is healthy for you to let something so small affect you bro. " I. Don't. Want. To. See. Naked. Children. On. Album. Covers." does sound like nudity in albums is a really big problem for you. Weird flex but ok, still love u

this begs the question of where did the band actually find this image in the first place if it was photos of some random baby who they had no authorization to use? was the kid a model or something?

guys a moron

Next up: Houses of the Holy

I don't even like Nirvana and I hope they sue him back and leave him financially ruined

I don't get how this could even work, without also indicating the record company and every outlet that ever sold the record as partners in crime? I suppose all those businessess need to be shut down, and the people in charge of them put into jail.

South Park ‘PC Baby’ plot gets literal [2]

Shouldn't he be more upset at his parents for selling a picture of his baby dick?

^

Wait I just remembered this kid has purposely recreated the Nevermind artwork multiple times as he’s grown up. Last time he did it was in 2020. So obviously he is not deeply disturbed by it. What a chode. Guess he’s gotta pay for college somehow.

"For the album's 10th, 17th and 25th anniversaries, Elden recreated the front cover shot for photographers. He wanted to do the 25th anniversary shoot nude but the photographer preferred that he wore swim shorts"

"Elden said "I might have one of the most famous penises in the music industry, but no one would ever know that to look at me. Sooner or later, I want to create a print of a real-deal re-enactment shot, completely naked. Why not? I think it would be fun"
WTF

"Elden said "I might have one of the most famous penises in the music industry, but no one would ever know that to look at me. Sooner or later, I want to create a print of a real-deal re-enactment shot, completely naked. Why not? I think it would be fun"


Why....... why would you WANT people to directly associate you with an infant dick..?

"Whos next? The pregnant angel from In Utero cover?"

Don't give them ideas!

dude has a baby dick (2)

give the baby the dollar (3)