The photo was taken at the Rose Bowl Aquatics Center in Pasadena, California, and was featured for the cover of Nirvana's iconic second album, "Nevermind," which helped define Generation X and catapulted the Seattle band to international prominence that year.
Spencer Elden was 4 months old when he was photographed nude in a pool by a family acquaintance in 1991.
Also Read: Kate Winslet reveals her secret about avoiding being 'Outed As A Fraud'
Elden appeared to enjoy his role in the legendary cover in the decades that followed, recreating the scene for the album's 10th, 17th, 20th, and 25th anniversaries, but not naked.
In a 2016 interview with The New York Post, he remarked, "It's amazing but odd to be a part of something so big that I don't even remember," in which he posed holding the album cover at the age of 25.
Elden, 30, has now launched a federal lawsuit against Kurt Cobain's estate, as well as the musician's former bandmates David Grohl and Krist Novoselic, and Cobain's widow, Courtney Love. He alleged that they benefitted from his nude image, as did Geffen Records, who released "Nevermind." With at least 30 million copies sold globally, it is one of the best-selling records of all time.
Also Read: ‘Spider-Man: No way home’ trailer leaked, Twitter flooded with memes
Because of his association with the record, Elden experienced "permanent injury," including mental suffering and a "lifelong loss of income-earning potential." The complaint did not specify the losses, but stated that they will be revealed at trial.
According to Maggie Mabie, one of Elden's lawyers, Elden, an artist residing in Los Angeles County, has been in treatment for years to work through how the record cover affected him.
Also Read: Viral Video: Indian TikTok star orders pizza in Shakira’s voice, here is pop-star’s unmissable reply
She stated, "He hasn't met someone who hasn't seen his genitalia." “It serves as a continuous reminder of his lack of privacy. To the rest of the world, his privacy is worthless.”
Elden is demanding $150,000 from each of the 15 persons and corporations mentioned in the case, including Kurt Weddle, the photographer who shot the photo, according to the lawsuit. Weddle has not responded to requests for comment.
Elden's shot was chosen from dozens of baby photos taken by Weddle for the album cover, which Cobain envisioned depicting a baby underwater.
Elden's parents were paid $200 for the photograph, which was later changed to portray the infant pursuing a dollar dangling from a fishhook.
“They were attempting to stir up controversy because it sells,” Mabie explained. “The aim wasn't simply to create a threatening picture; it was to cross the boundary, and they did it in such a manner that Spencer was exposed so they could profit from it.”
She said her client consented occasionally when the band, media outlets, and fans requested him to recreate the shot as an adult, but he finally recognised that this just served to further exploit the "image of him as a baby."
Cobain's estate officials did not immediately reply to a request for comment. Messages made to Grohl, Love, and Geffen Records, which is now owned by Universal Music Group, did not respond.
He has voiced ambivalence about the cover throughout the years.
In a 2016 interview with the New York Post, he stated, "It'd be wonderful to have a quarter for every individual who has seen my baby penis."
In another interview that year, he expressed his displeasure with the fact that it was still being discussed.
“Recently, I've been wondering, 'What if I didn't want my blasted penis to be seen by everyone?' I didn't have much of a choice,” Elden said to GQ Australia.
“Just a few months ago, when I was reaching out to Nirvana to see if they wanted to be a part of my art show,” he added, his sentiments about the cover began to shift.
I was referred to Managers and lawyers , Elden claimed.
“If I'm not that important, why am I still on their cover?” he wondered.
Elden is “asking Nirvana to redact the photos of his genitalia off the record cover, as Nirvana should have done 30 years ago,” according to Mabie.
This isn't your typical child pornography case, according to Mary Graw Leary, a professor at the Catholic University of America's Columbus School of Law.
“The nakedness of a child alone does not constitute pornography,” she explained. “The typical child pornography that law enforcement sees and that is pursued in the courts can be violent. The kids are young, and it's a very graphic.”
But, according to Graw Leary, there are factors under federal law that allow a judge or jury to decide whether a photo of a minor “constitutes a lascivious exhibition of the genitals,” such as whether they were the focal point of the photo.
She explained that this section of the law “gives the court a little more discretion.” “This isn't a case with simple solutions.”