That must surely be foreseeable, and so to use and publish such a photograph is a deliberate act with that risk in mind. The naked swimming baby from the cover of the groundbreaking Nirvana album Nevermind re-enacted the image for the record’s 25th anniversary this time wearing. 1) The baby is now a SEVENTEEN-YEAR-OLD man. "There is a potential argument that to publish a photograph of a baby with genitalia exposed is likely to cause him or her, later in life, at the very least a degree of embarrassment, and at worse distress. Just a couple of quick observations here, gleaned from MTV’s exposé on Spencer Elden, the so-called Nirvana baby. READ MORE: Have Matt Damon's critics been too quick to attack over his homophobic slur confession? He continues: "It is clearly understandable how such an image could potentially cause psychological injury. Speaking about his changing views on the photograph, sexual abuse solicitor at Hugh James, Alan Collins, tells Four Nine that "whether Elden or any other victim in such a case can prove they have suffered psychiatric harm after all this time may be a formidable obstacle".
Elden has complained about it – but his complaint seems to be around the fact that the album and the band made millions, while his family were only paid $250." Spencer Elden was photographed nude as an infant for Nirvana's Nevermind album cover (Credit: Alamy) Has Spencer Elden 'missed the boat'?Įxplaining Elden's legal rights, Stephens tells me: "According to the statute of limitations, Elden is allowed three years from his 18th birthday to file a complaint, and to withdraw his consent for its use. Famous for being photographed nude at four-months-old for the 1991 record, Spencer Elden, 30, claims he was too young to give his consent at the time and that the band violated federal child pornography statutes by using the image.Įlden alleges that he has suffered "lifelong damages" due to the cover, including "extreme and permanent emotional distress with physical manifestations", as well as loss of education, financial gain, and "enjoyment of life".Ĭommenting on the case, Mark Stephens, human rights lawyer at Howard Kennedy, tells Four Nine that Elden's claim is "legally far fetched" and that it is likely to be dismissed.