The 30-year-old man insists on his fight.
Spencer Elden, the baby who swam naked on the iconic cover of Nirvana's "Nevermind" album in 1991, is asking the band to change to the upcoming 30-year reissue of the album the cover that leaves his genitals uncovered. .
After accusing the band of sexual exploitation and "child pornography", claiming that he was unable to consent to the use of his image in "Nevermind", Spencer Elden now wants to censor the photo in all future releases of the album.
Anniversary reissues of "Nervermind", which will include more than 70 unreleased audio and video tracks, will be available from November 12.
Elden and his lawyers at the Marsh Law Firm issued a statement on the matter, describing it as a matter of "consent", "child pornography" and "privacy".
"On September 24, as every year on this date, our client Spencer Elden had to prepare to face the unwanted attention of the media and fans around the world again. This is a choice he has never had. "It was imposed on him and for 30 years he has been facing its catastrophic and painful consequences," the statement said.
"Our message to Nirvana is clear - edit the image of Mr. Elden's genitals from all future album covers," he said.
Spencer Elden - Nevermind
In August, Elden's legal team filed a federal lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in Central California against Nirvana, Kurt Cobain, Universal Music Group, Warner Records, David Geffen, photographer David Geffen Weddle and others on charges of "child pornography" and "sexual exploitation."
The 30-year-old man claims today in the lawsuit that he never gave his consent for the use of his image, due to the fact that he was only 4 months old at the time, while he claims that neither his legal guardians gave their consent. He also states that the grunge band had promised to cover his genitals with a sticker, which never happened.
Since the lawsuit was filed, several lawyers familiar with the law of entertainment have challenged the allegations.
"I think it's extremely unlikely that a record company would use a photo for the cover of an album without checking for parental permission," Early Sullivan partner Bryan Sullivan told The Hollywood Reporter.
"But, if there is no license, it does not mean that he has a claim for compensation for child pornography. "As far as the right to privacy is concerned, you can give it up with your actions or with the actions of his parents who allowed him to be photographed," he added.
Another entertainment lawyer said: "I think what will be of most concern to any judge will be the time that has elapsed since the photo was published, the fact that the child's parents did it knowingly (more or less, but they knew that the naked baby was being photographed) and the many times the plaintiff himself kissed the photo and sought publicity. "
