Nirvana: Freelance artist files lawsuit claiming he created iconic ‘smiley face’ logo

Band’s attorney described the claim as ‘factually and legally baseless’

A freelance graphic designer from California has filed a legal motion claiming he created Nirvana’s ironic smiley face logo.

The image has long been attributed to the band’s late frontman, Kurt Cobain.

As reported by Billboard, Robert Fisher filed a motion on 13 September claiming that he was in fact the rightful owner of the design.

The Nirvana 'Smiley Face' logo, seen here on a shirt worn by chef Gaggan Anand, is the subject of a legal dispute (AFP via Getty Images)

According to Fisher’s legal representative, Inge De Bruyn, the artist had only recently discovered that the image was being “misattributed” .

 “He was also not aware that, back in 1993, Nirvana, Inc. registered the copyright for the Happy Face t-shirt design, naming itself as the author,” said De Bruyn. “Robert has always been a rather private person and not one to wear his achievements on his sleeve.

“That said, there’s a clear line between people speculating about the origins and authorship of his work, and it being misattributed to someone else. Most creative people would object to that. Artists deserve proper credit for their work. Often times, it’s all they get.”

In court papers accessed by Billboard, it was alleged that Fischer once served as an art director for Geffen Records, working closely with Nirvana in the build-up to the release of their seminal album Nervermind.

De Bruyn continued: “The rule in copyright is that the individual creator of a work is to be considered its author and original owner. That really is the basic premise. ‘Work-for-hire’ as a legal fiction forms a very limited exception to that premise.

“As explained in the filings, we don’t believe that, under the law, this exception applies here. And the situation is such that if Robert does not assert his rights now, he risks losing them forever.”

Nirvana’s attorney Bert H Deixler told the Los Angeles Times that the claims would be “vigorously” challenged and were “factually and legally baseless”.