So, multiple things can be true

It does seem like a money grab, sure, welcome to American civil courts lol, BUT the dude does have a point, and maybe a viable case.
And yes, the cover art image has always been creepy and weird and wrong; the image will continue to age poorly and be judged harshly by history, AND the music is great and it’s an extraordinary album regardless if they’d chosen different art.

If they had slapped a photo of a basket of strawberries on the album cover, the album still would have been a hit.

The cover of the album has nothing to do with the success of the music.

He (and his family) have used this photo as a way of making themselves more than they are -- he was a baby model, no different than the Gerber baby.

Honestly, I've seen that cover a million times and never thought or give consideration to the fact there's a penis on it. It's a BABY.

No one would even know it's him except for the fact he's used it as his calling card all of his life -- even to the point of tattooing the name of the album on his chest.

Maybe he just needs to grow up and get a life.

I agree with the baby.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve always thought it was kind of awful they put that on the cover. I wouldn’t want the world seeing a picture of me naked when I was a baby. If my mom has given permission I wouldn’t think it’s better, I would just resent my mom for it.

2.5 million is pretty steep though.

I wouldn’t mind if the world saw me naked as a baby. Especially if it was on an iconic album cover.

Right, to each their own, but an infant can’t exactly make that choice.

That's why parents are legally authorized to consent for a child, like for medical care, benefits, use of a laser tag facility.

How does anyone know it is him? Who has exploited the connection between the random infant photo and this person?

It was dumb for the parents to ever even tell him it was him. They had to have foreseen this—heck, everyone involved had to have foreseen this.

LOL Spencer Elden is 30 and just realized he's broke and jobless. Time to try to cash in.

Blame the parents. They're the ones that sold your wang for the world to see for $300.

Anonymous wrote:He should get royalties for the photo. $300 GTFO

Blame his parents, they made the deal

I'm so conflicted on this. In one sense, no one has to know it was him in order for him to have been exploited. It's still his image and HE knows it's him. But it does feel sketchy that he in essence tried to become famous off the very image he claims exploited him. But I wonder if those two things have anything to do with one another legally.

But for him to say it's caused him distress when he put himself out there "forever legally tying my name to this album cover" in a much more concrete way is just disingenuous to me.

Anonymous wrote:Way to late the game and he didn't have any problem coming out years ago that he was the kid on the cover. If he said nothing, no one would have ever known. In this day and age, any kid who saw it would likely assume it was some kind of photoshopped baby not a real kid anyway ...

Agree. He's been telling people and giving interviews about it his whole life. He's clearly used it as a way to get noticed. Otherwise, who would ever know?

He should get royalties for the photo. $300 GTFO

Anonymous wrote:I’ve always thought it was kind of awful they put that on the cover. I wouldn’t want the world seeing a picture of me naked when I was a baby. If my mom has given permission I wouldn’t think it’s better, I would just resent my mom for it.

2.5 million is pretty steep though.

It's really only 150k each. That seems a more equitable amount than $200 his father was paid for one of the most famous albums covers in the world.

Elden is asking for $150,000 from each of 17 defendants named in the suit

Way to late the game and he didn't have any problem coming out years ago that he was the kid on the cover. If he said nothing, no one would have ever known. In this day and age, any kid who saw it would likely assume it was some kind of photoshopped baby not a real kid anyway ...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I don’t care if he got a tattoo of Nevermind and bragged about being the baby on the album cover. I still think that cover was exploitative. I hope he wins.

+1

That album made tons - a couple mil is nothing, really.

It made tons because of the music, not the cover.

Anonymous wrote:
I don’t care if he got a tattoo of Nevermind and bragged about being the baby on the album cover. I still think that cover was exploitative. I hope he wins.

+1

That album made tons - a couple mil is nothing, really.