“Our understanding is there was no release,” counters Elden’s attorney, James Marsh. As to the right of privacy, you can waive it by your actions or by his parents’ actions in allowing him to be photographed.”

“But, if is there is no release, it does not mean he has a claim for child pornography.

“I think it is highly unlikely that a record company would use a photograph for an album cover without verifying the existence of a release signed by the parents,” Sullivan says. Speaking to the Hollywood Reporter, though, Bryan Sullivan, an entertainment litigation partner at Early Sullivan, calls the suit “ridiculous”, adding that the claims are weak even if there was no written agreement.

Though non-sexualised images of infants aren’t generally considered child pornography under US law, the legal team argues that the dollar bill makes the then-baby seem “like a sex worker”.Įlden is asking for damages of at least $150,000 from each of the 15 defendants, who also include surviving members Dave Grohl and Krist Novoselic, and the album cover photographer (and former family friend of Elden) Kirk Weddle.

In the original legal papers, Elden’s lawyers claim that the image “exposed Spencer’s intimate body part and lasciviously displayed Spencer’s genitals from the time he was an infant to the present day”. Earlier this week (August 24), Spencer Elden, the 30-year-old-man who appeared on Nirvana’s Nevermind cover as a four-month-old baby, filed a lawsuit against the remaining members of the band and Kurt Cobain’s estate (including overseer Courtney Love), alleging child pornography and sexual exploitation.Īccording to legal experts, however, the case is likely to be dismissed for a variety of reasons, including the fact that Elden has previously embraced the publicity from the image (which, if you’re unfamiliar, depicts an underwater baby with its genitals exposed, reaching for a dollar bill).

Is nirvana nevermind cover pornography