ELDEN V. NIRVANA L.L.C., No. 22-55822 (9th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
In a case before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, plaintiff Spencer Elden, who as a baby was photographed naked in a pool for the cover of Nirvana’s album Nevermind, sued Nirvana L.L.C., Universal Music Group, and others. Elden claimed that he was a victim of child pornography due to the photograph and sought personal injury damages under 18 U.S.C. § 2255 (2018). The district court dismissed Elden's lawsuit, stating that it was barred by the ten-year statute of limitations, 18 U.S.C. § 2255(b)(1) (2018).
However, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's decision and held that because each republication of child pornography may constitute a new personal injury, Elden’s complaint alleging republication of the album cover within the ten years preceding his action was not barred by the statute of limitations. The court drew a parallel between the personal injury caused by defamation and the injury caused by republication of child pornography, noting that victims of child pornography may suffer a new injury upon the republication of the pornographic material. The court remanded the case back to the district court for further proceedings.
Court Description: Civil Suit Under 18 U.S.C. § 2255. The panel reversed the district court’s dismissal of a civil suit brought by Spencer Elden under 18 U.S.C. § 2255 (2018) and remanded.
Elden sought personal injury damages on the ground that he was a victim of child pornography when, as a baby, he was photographed naked in a pool for the cover of Nirvana’s album Nevermind. The district court dismissed the action as barred by the ten-year statute of limitations, 18 U.S.C.
§ 2255(b)(1) (2018).
Reversing, the panel held that, because each republication of child pornography may constitute a new personal injury, Elden’s complaint alleging republication of the album cover within the ten years preceding his action was not barred by the statute of limitations.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.