There's more at the source.

A 30-year-old man who appeared nude at 4 months old in 1991 on the cover of Nirvana’s “Nevermind” album is suing the band and others, alleging the image is child pornography they have profited from.

The suit, filed by Spencer Elden on Tuesday in federal court in California, alleges that Nirvana and the record labels behind “Nevermind” “intentionally commercially marketed Spencer’s child pornography and leveraged the shocking nature of his image to promote themselves and their music at his expense.”

The suit says Elden has suffered “lifelong damages” from the ubiquitous image of him naked underwater appearing to swim after a dollar bill on a fish hook.

It seeks at least $150,000 from each of more than a dozen defendants, including the Kurt Cobain estate, surviving Nirvana members Krist Novocelic and Dave Grohl and Geffen Records.

Emails seeking comment from representatives for the defendants were not immediately returned.

The article goes on to say:

He told the New York Post in 2015 that it was “cool but weird to be part of something so important that I don’t even remember.”

He added, “It’d be nice to have a quarter for every person that has seen my baby penis.”

_________________

I'm just calling bullshit on this one. Thoughts?

[Edited 8/25/21 18:00pm]

In 2016:




And what's that tattoo on his chest say? NEVERMIND

MotownSubdivision said:

Probably a poor choice of words but fuck him.

My sentiments exactly. Just a money grab.

MotownSubdivision said:

Probably a poor choice of words but fuck him.

Perfect choice of words if you ask me.

MotownSubdivision said:

Probably a poor choice of words but fuck him.

Exactly.This guy is nothing but a shameless opportunist...trying to get some money.smh.

TrivialPursuit said:

In 2016:




And what's that tattoo on his chest say? NEVERMIND

Celebrating it a few Years ago, but NOW Suing? What BULLSH*T!!! Better be careful!!! Somebody might have Him........

Can't let go of his only claim to fame.

coldcoffeeandcocacola said:

How did they get hold of the photo? He's a fan. Very strange.

Read the source link. It's in there.

Someone's desperate for a pay day ... embarrassing that the American legal system would even entertain such BS.

He definitely looks like he needs money

His image his choice.

Always hated that cover, was always side-eying society for allowing it. Plus, 150k ain't much for a successful merch company, let him have it.

LouieLestate said:

His image his choice.

Always hated that cover, was always side-eying society for allowing it. Plus, 150k ain't much for a successful merch company, let him have it.

and if he really thinks that a naked baby on an album cover is "child pornography",why doesn't he sue his parents too? They're the ones who allowed it to happen,right?

This guy is nuts.

DaveT said:

Someone's desperate for a pay day ... embarrassing that the American legal system would even entertain such BS.

embarassing,indeed

SoulAlive said:

and if he really thinks that a naked baby on an album cover is "child pornography",why doesn't he sue his parents too? They're the ones who allowed it to happen,right?

This guy is nuts.

I was wondering the exact same thing...

And his lawyer is a joke I saw her interviewed on cnn Jesus Christ why does everyone things they have a case just by saying child pornography. Let's remember it's the 30th anniversary and this prick no pun intended knows there is going to be tons of attention on the record probably reissues etc...and it smells like teen spirit smells like I need money. If he had issues about this why did he promote it and she it was him get a tattoo and where it like a badge , sorry but he's a creep and his lawyer is even worse

SoulAlive said:

and if he really thinks that a naked baby on an album cover is "child pornography",why doesn't he sue his parents too? They're the ones who allowed it to happen,right?

This guy is nuts.

Yeah, the article said the band, plus other people, which makes me wonder - is he going after an A&R guy, the album designer, who? What about his father who allowed the photo taken?

People take pics of their naked babies all the time. Doesn't mean it's pornography. Hell, most adult nude photos aren't pornography.

I don't usually go to this conclusion by default, but here I will say it seems like someone is just out for a quick pay day. And he'll probably get it. Besides, if he hadn't told who he was, or had NEVERMIND tattooed on his fucking chest, or reposed for the photo at least twice, then all this wouldn't even be an issue.

lastdecember said:

And his lawyer is a joke I saw her interviewed on cnn Jesus Christ why does everyone things they have a case just by saying child pornography. Let's remember it's the 30th anniversary and this prick no pun intended knows there is going to be tons of attention on the record probably reissues etc...and it smells like teen spirit smells like I need money. If he had issues about this why did he promote it and she it was him get a tattoo and where it like a badge , sorry but he's a creep and his lawyer is even worse

Absolutely the timing of it feels like extortion, considering they have probably already sent the 30th edition to the presses.

No one would even know it was him if he hadn't told the world over and over, reaching for clout.

TrivialPursuit said:

Cinny said:

lastdecember said:

And his lawyer is a joke I saw her interviewed on cnn Jesus Christ why does everyone things they have a case just by saying child pornography. Let's remember it's the 30th anniversary and this prick no pun intended knows there is going to be tons of attention on the record probably reissues etc...and it smells like teen spirit smells like I need money. If he had issues about this why did he promote it and she it was him get a tattoo and where it like a badge , sorry but he's a creep and his lawyer is even worse

Absolutely the timing of it feels like extortion, considering they have probably already sent the 30th edition to the presses.

he was interviewed for the 25th anniversary and he was already talking about litigation. It's sad that he goes his route, like someone said if the case were about some sort of money for likeness etc...though his guardians signed that away so tough shit, next time think about the future, but him and his female lawyer frame this as pornography and say he was forced to perform sexual acts, and the way the public is now with cancel this and that and lack of perspectives it would easily fall for this stupidity.

Nirvana's 'Nevermind' Art...ling Stone

‘No Reasonable Person’ Would Consider Nirvana’s ‘Nevermind’ Cover Child Porn, Lawyers Say

Legally speaking, however, experts say Elden does not have much of a case on his hands.

“The case is likely going to be dismissed,” says criminal defense attorney Matthew Matejcek of Beles & Beles, pointing to the Department of Justice’s definition of child pornography. “It has to appeal to the viewer’s prurient interest. What’s going to be at issue here is whether this album cover incites the lustful interest, sexual stimulation, or gratification of the viewer. And I think it’s pretty clear that’s not the purpose.”

SoulAlive said:

Nirvana's 'Nevermind' Art...ling Stone

‘No Reasonable Person’ Would Consider Nirvana’s ‘Nevermind’ Cover Child Porn, Lawyers Say

Legally speaking, however, experts say Elden does not have much of a case on his hands.

At the core of this knotted web is one thing: Elden’s legal guardian agreed to let a buzzing punk band take photos of him as a baby for 200 bucks. The band’s team asked, and the guardian said yes. There may have been no way of knowing that the album and cover art would be as influential as it became — but, regardless, the band and Elden’s guardian both struck some sort of agreement. The lawsuit over the image is unlikely to succeed, attorneys from four separate law firms, who all have experience in matters of child pornography, tell Rolling Stone.

“The case is likely going to be dismissed,” says criminal defense attorney Matthew Matejcek of Beles & Beles, pointing to the Department of Justice’s definition of child pornography. “It has to appeal to the viewer’s prurient interest. What’s going to be at issue here is whether this album cover incites the lustful interest, sexual stimulation, or gratification of the viewer. And I think it’s pretty clear that’s not the purpose.”

not only should they not get a dime they should counter sue them for attaching sex trafficking and pornography to the band the label and people that did that record. This guys lawyer is a joke she looks like someone that got her law degree on a blog or online classes.

Snopes also reported, and verified it, that when the record company questioned the album cover, he said to them if they were offended by the picture, then they must be a closet pedophile.