As mentioned in the comments, the tosser trying to sue Nirvana is back.
A US appeals court has revived a lawsuit accusing the rock band Nirvana of publishing child sexual abuse images by using a photograph of a naked four-month-old baby on the cover of its hit 1991 album “Nevermind.”
The 9th US circuit court of appeals overturned a lower court’s decision that Spencer Elden, the baby depicted on the cover, had waited too long to bring his lawsuit against the seminal Seattle grunge band.
The court did not address whether the cover of “Nevermind” constitutes an image of child sexual abuse.
Clearly the appeals court is fine with long dead events being brought back to life, like some zombie apocalypse. While they are probably applying the letter of the law – in this case, because the album was rereleased, the clock starts again – all they have done is give this vexatious litigation another lease of life. Clearly there does need to be a statute of limitations on these kinds of actions, regardless of merit and regardless of the album being rereleased. The cover image was taken three decades ago and Eldon has made money off the back of it, so the ‘harm’ he is claiming is false.
In this case, there is no case to answer. There was no sexual abuse and the case has no merit whatsoever. This is a chancer trying to grab some free money. Hopefully, it will get kicked out again and he will have to pay even more in costs.
The Led Zeppelin album Houses of the Holy has naked pre-pubescent girls on it I seem to recall.
The Queen album Jazz came with a lovely poster of naked women riding bicycles.
Two possibilities – one of the women alleges sexual abuse or a purchaser claims offence……
Me – I loved it
The famous Blind Faith album cover is probably illegal now. The 11-y-o girl got 40 quid, and afaik hasn’t sued
Well, I’m off to a sauna now, butt naked, might as well have a nice Saturday streak down to the beck for a quick dip in the water. The pleasures of country living, sans child sexual abuse.
I grew up thinking, naively, that the role of judges was to interpret and apply the written law on an appropriate case-by-case basis. Hence the term ‘court case’.
Unfortunately the judiciary seems to have been swallowed by the civil service blob and become a policy driven thoughtless machine that just processes cases, with only those gaining the maximum publicity eventually arriving at the supreme court where some level of (biased) judgement is applied.
I appreciate that the given example is in the US, though I’ve no doubt that the same would apply here these days by various twisted means.
At least the original cover of Guns & Roses “Appetite For Destruction” only featured Robot “rape”…imagine how AI would protest? Skynet is here