Dave Grohl responds to Nirvana lawsuit: “He’s got a Nevermind tattoo, I dont”

Danny Jones

The Nevermind baby is suing the band for ‘sexual exploitation’ – despite having the album cover tattooed on his body

Dave Grohl has had his say on the ongoing Nirvana lawsuit, noting that he’s not the one who has a tattoo dedicated to the iconic and often infamously-regarded Nevermind album artwork from 1991 on his body.

While the band no longer exists and frontman Kurt Cobain has been dead for 27 years, Spencer Elden – the baby whose parents allowed him to be photographed for the band’s breakout album for a mere $200 back in the day – is currently suing the band for alleged sexual exploitation, adding that no written consent was ever given.

https://www.instagram.com/p/CCGEJXZJJO-/?utm_source=ig_embed

The album’s 30th anniversary recently passed and although Elden asked for the image not to be used, calling it “child pornography” and pointing out that he could not possibly have given consent, the band’s former drummer has pointed towards an element of apparent hypocrisy.

Speaking to Vulture on October 26, Foo Fighters frontman Grohl was asked his opinion on the suit and whether he agrees that it constitutes child pornography. Though he admitted that he hadn’t thought about it too much and that, like “most people […] I have to disagree”, when pressed further it was clear that the suit may not feel as sincere as some may believe.

Interviewer Craig Jenkins cited how Elden has previously embraced his reputation as “the Nevermind baby” and recreated the album cover at least “four times”, to which the 52-year-old singer/songwriter simply replied: “Listen, he’s got a Nevermind tattoo. I don’t.”

Nirvana's Nevermind baby recreates album cover 25 years on https://t.co/ZxGQR0hSkg pic.twitter.com/fchcsYcwyX

— Metal Hammer (@MetalHammer) September 26, 2016

Grohl clearly believes no ill will was intended when the photo was taken all those years ago and intimated that besides disagreeing with the allegation, he seems to align with those labelling it an opportunistic attempt to make some cash.

While no one is denying that the image seems inappropriate by today’s standards – not to mention the parents’ decision questionable – it’s hard to take his pursuit of “lifelong damages” as seriously given his previous attitude towards the album.