Ah, that would explain Chuck Norris’ lack of musical sophistication, then.
I’ve been thinking…
-
If anybody in this solar system is honestly thinking that picture can be considered child pornography, isn’t it the responsibility of the State to bring criminal charges against particular defendants?
-
If this guy is honestly taking the ‘hey I was exploited’ route, shouldn’t he be suing his parents who (regardless of whether or not they got the paperwork done correctly and regardless of how much they got paid) permitted the exploitation allowed the photography session? How much is he willing to sue his own parents for? $200? I gotta say, there’s other parents who have done a lot worse to their kids who deserve to get sued or criminally charged long before the Eldens are even considered.
-
I wonder if Mr. Elden is not doing this so much for the cash grab or even for the principal of the matter or even with an expectation of winning, but for the meager amounts he might be able to squeeze out of entities who want to interview him about this matter. “Yeah, you wanna talk about my client’s case? Schedule it with his agent – yeah, the same guy who’s helping him set up his gallery exhibit. Oh yeah, go see his exhibit, too, 'cause he gets a cut of the door fee.”
–G!
FWIW, I never thought the album, band, or picture were impressive in any way.
They were parodied by Weird Al. "Nuff said.
And then he parodied his own parody for the Simpsons.
Tweeted - Weird Al sues Weird Al over album cover.
This strikes me as pretty ridiculous. However, I’m not sure if this changes anything about Anne Geddes taking babies and dressing them up as cabbages, or whatever she does.
The Van Halen Baby thinks the Nirvana Baby needs to sit the fuck down and stop being so whiny-assed.
Here’s Kevin Underwood’s take at Lowering the Bar.
He points out that, in addition to the assertion that the picture is pornographic being obviously absurd, the statute of limitations (10 years after the victim becomes aware of the existence of the material or turns 18, whichever is later) has passed, so the entire lawsuit is frivolous on its face and may lead to sanctions against the attorneys involved. (There is no criminal statute of limitations for child pornography, but this is a civil case)
The verdict is in.
Judge to Plaintiff: “Whatever, nevermind”.
That was some excellent link text! Well done.
This is funniest thing I am going to read today!
The dismissal apparently because the plaintiff could bring nothing to refute the defense’s motion within the required time. Well sure: ‘cause in the common phrase, "they got nuthin’".
The ruling does leave them the option to try again if they can put together something worth the court’s time. Oughta be interesting to see if they even bother.
Not sure what happened in Dec, but this seems like it’s completely over now.
Yeah, about that…
Well, at least they didn’t rule on the merits. Also, I wonder, since the successful appeal was based on Nirvana having recently rereleased the album (resetting the statute of limitations clock), is he limited to “damages” that occurred since the reset? IOW, would he have to show that a 30-year-old photo harmed him, a grown-ass man, nothing prior counts?
The poor fellow still gets recognized and ridiculed when he swims in a pool.
Bumped with an update:
And see:
Not helpful to the ex-baby’s case, as defense counsel earlier noted: he had “spent three decades profiting from his celebrity as the self-anointed ‘Nirvana Baby,’ having reenacted the artwork several times, and that he had the album title tattooed on his chest.”
Did he at any time speak to his parents? Someone made a decision for this to happen. They were legally responsible, why go after the band? Why not have a heart to heart with mom & dad?
I feel like the tattoo supports his case that this affected him deeply. On the other hand, the photo is very much not porn. It’s an intriguing photo, but not even a little sexy.
My response from 2021 still feels current and pertinent.