Judge dismisses Nirvana’s ‘Nevermind’ album cover lawsuit

A judge has dismissed the case against the surviving Nirvana members over the cover photo of their popular album ‘Nevermind’.

Last year, Spencer Elden – the child who appeared nude in the front of the album – sued a number of individuals and companies associated with the record including Nirvana band members Dave Grohl and Krist Novoselic as well as Kurt Cobain’s widow Courtney Love, who is the executor. Owned by Cobain. Elden’s suit alleged that the image on the cover was taken and used without his consent and that the nudity amounted to child abuse.

In addition to Grohl, Novoselic, and Love, defendants in the lawsuit include Elden Cobain, who died in 1994; music directors Jay Osiri and Heather Barry who run the Cobain estate; Photographer Kirk Weddell. Art Director Robert Fisher; Nirvana’s original drummer Chad Channing (who was replaced by Grohl long before “Nevermind” was conceived and released) and a variety of record labels (including some that are now discontinued) have handled the album in some form since its release in 1991.

Two weeks ago, attorneys for Grohl, Novoselic, Weddle, Love, Cobain, Nirvana, LLC, MCA Records, and UMG Recordings, Inc. and Universal Music Group, Inc. and The David Geffen Company and Geffen Records jointly expelled Elden’s lawsuit, which states that Elden “spent three decades profiting from his fame as a self-anointed ‘Nirvana Baby’ and that the lawsuit was locked up over time.”

The movie “Nevermind”, which celebrated its 30th anniversary last year, was released in 1991.

On Monday evening, Judge Fernando M. Olgen, who was presiding over the case in US District Court in Central California, dismissed the case after Elden missed the deadline for filing an objection to the defendants’ request to dismiss the suit.

The deadline was December 30th.

However, Judge Ulgen’s dismissal took place with “amendment authorization.” So, although the lawsuit was dismissed, Elden was given a second chance to re-file a new complaint — one that would fix alleged “flaws” in the defendants’ application for denials, such as the claim that the lawsuit had lapsed. .

If Elden misses the new January 13 deadline, the lawsuit will be dismissed “without prejudice,” and the matter will be considered closed.

If Elden resubmits the application by January 13, the defendants’ attorneys will have two more weeks to file a response to the new lawsuit.

“Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to file a second amended complaint in a timely manner will result in dismissal of this action without prejudice to failure to prosecute and/or failure to comply with court order,” the judgment read.

Judge Ulgen also ordered that if the defendants wish to file another application to dismiss the re-filed lawsuit, “the parties’ attorneys shall, on January 20, 2022, at 10:00 a.m. meet and consult in person or via video conference to discuss the defendants’ request for dismissal.” Accordingly, the rejection proposal must include details and letters of the “meet and grant” process. Without this, the rejection request will be rejected.

Leave a Comment