Top 10 Album Covers That Led to Lawsuits

Matchbox Twenty
Nothing screams “the 90s” like Matchbox Twenty. Well, their 1996 debut album came back to haunt them in 2005, when the man pictured on the cover took them to court. Frank Torres claimed his photo was taken by a photographer on the street, and though he allowed his photo to be taken, he never authorized his likeness to be used on the album cover. In fact, he claimed that he didn’t even notice the album cover for a few years, hence the lateness of the lawsuit. Take heed, amateur photographers. If you want to sell photographs of random pedestrians, make them sign a waiver.

Van Halen
You’d think after the Tommy Tutone debacle that made 867-5309 the worst phone number to have in 1981, bands would learn to avoid random phone numbers. In 1991, the Van Halen album “For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge” featured a photo with numbers on a chalkboard in the liner notes. Less than a year after the release, a Tulsa family sued the band for over 2 million dollars, claiming that the publishing of their phone number, area code included, had caused them anguish. Aside from countless vulgar phone calls, their home was vandalized multiple times.

Van Morrison
In 2017, the singer-songwriter released his 37th studio album. The cover featured a wrestler throwing down his opponent. Billy Two Rivers, of Kahnawake, Quebec, was a wrestler in the 50s and 60s, and toured extensively. His image was used without his permission, and Two Rivers sued in 2017 for its use, as well as violation of his publicity rights. As well as being a wrestler, Billy Two Rivers was an actor and member of the Mohawk Council vital to the 1990 Oka Crisis negotiations, thus a public figure. The suit was settled quickly for an undisclosed amount.

Dido
They say in space, no one can hear you sue. Is that what they say? Well, regardless, it’s not true. In 2008, English singer-songwriter Dido released an album with the image of a free-floating astronaut on the cover. That astronaut was, in fact, Bruce McCandless II, whose photo was taken in 1984. He was the first astronaut to perform a “free flight” in space, untethered. His image was used without consent, resulting in a lawsuit. As Dido sang in “Here With Me”: “I am what I am… I do what I want”. Well, there are consequences. Even a tiny, suited spaceman isn’t safe to use without asking first.

Judas Priest
This one isn’t absolutely clear, but plausible. For its US release, the cover of this Judas Priest album was changed, and rumours that a potential lawsuit was at play were whispered. Some say the band was unhappy with the original cover, others say Coca-Cola wasn’t too pleased with the clear use of their font and presentation. The original cover featured the top of a bottle, with the cap saying “Rocka Rolla”, in the clear likeness of “Coca-Cola”. The second cover was more in line with the band’s metal image, using the artwork of Mel Grant.

Dead Kennedys
You know those guys who ride around in the tiny cars wearing red fezzes? They seem like they would make an interesting album cover photo, right? Well, the four Shriners featured on the cover of Dead Kennedys 1985 album “Frankenchrist” begged to differ. The liner notes also included an art poster with male genitalia, which also didn’t really please them. The photo had originally been taken and featured in Newsweek magazine in the 1970s, and subsequently sold for other uses. However, the Shriners are typically associated with their charitable works, such as their hospitals for children. An association with punk-rock miscreants isn’t in their repertoire. They sued the group, Newsweek and a couple of retailers for 45 million dollars.

Cardi B
Cardi B is no stranger to controversy, and her 2016 album cover was no exception. The cover features Cardi in a provocative position, with a man “entertaining” her in the back of a limo. The problem with this? The tattoo on the male’s back isn’t the model’s, but a photoshop imported from a Google search of “back tattoos” by the graphic designer. The tattoo’s owner, Kevin Brophy Jr, quickly recognized his unique design, and sued for unlawful use of the image, as well as tarnishing his reputation by portraying him in a lewd act without his permission.

The Rolling Stones
The Rolling Stones released this album in 1978 to quite a few angry parties. The cover featured an old ad for Valmor Products Corporation, with the faces of various celebrities replacing the original ad’s models. Once again, however, permissions were not given. The Stones were sued by Valmor for unlawful use of their print ad, and they were also sued by Marilyn Monroe’s estate, Farrah Fawcett, Raquel Welch, Lucille Ball, and Liza Minnelli (for the image of her mother, Judy Garland). The Stones had to redesign the cover, removing the celebrity faces and replacing them with hand-drawn likenesses, as well as pay up to Valmor for the ad design.

The Velvet Underground & Nico
The art for this album is actually linked to two lawsuits! Actor Eric Emerson sued for use of his image on the back cover. And in 2012 the band sued the Andy Warhol Foundation when the latter licensed the banana design from the front cover to Apple. The Velvet Underground claimed that it held the copyright to the image, and the Foundation claimed that it held the rights to Warhol’s works. The case was settled out of court in 2013. There are countless images that could be used from Warhol’s extensive works, but the assumption is they really wanted that banana. We wonder what Andy Warhol would have thought of all this.

Nirvana
News of this lawsuit went viral in summer 2021. The album cover for Nirvana’s 1991 album “Nevermind” is considered iconic. It depicts a baby, Spencer Elden, in a swimming pool, reaching for a dollar bill on a fishhook. His father was paid $200 for the photo. Over the years, Elden has recreated the image several times (in a swimsuit). But he’s also expressed misgivings over the “money involved”, and having his privates shown to the world without his say. In August 2021 he filed a lawsuit, alleging that the image constitutes sexual exploitation and has caused him emotional distress, embarrassment and lack of privacy. The move has been criticized by several legal experts as frivolous and a cash grab.