If Elden is now asking for damages, then he has every right to do so. However, the real question here is a different one, one that wasn't posed 30 years ago: Are you allowed to photograph naked children and then publish these photos? No - for today we know that many among us ogle such photos in inappropriate ways. The internet is buzzing over this question. It would seem that Elden's lawsuit is actually a way to go after money - just like on the Nevermind cover. After all, over the past years Elden has accepted payment in exchange for letting himself be photographed - clothed - in the album cover pose.

Of course this raises the question of why now.

But front man Kurt Cobain supposedly was only ready to agree to this if they covered the area with a sticker that read, 'If you're offended by this, you must be a closet pedophile.'īut here's the crux of the matter: I would never allege that any of those involved at the time felt feelings of sexual arousal in any form when they looked at the image.īaby Spencer Elden also couldn't object. Still, the record label suggested covering up the baby's genitals. Barely anyone was bothered by the fact that the baby's penis was visible in the photo. The members of Nirvana - then a relatively unknown band - had themselves tried to pose underwater, but the photo with the baby swimming after a dollar bill convinced them all: the band, the label, the photographer. And so, Elden's father allowed his then 4-month-old baby to be photographed in water, resulting in one of the most famous album covers in music history. But the same sensitivity wasn't there 30 years ago. No one today would ever think of putting a naked baby on show like that. For one, child abuse has been recognized around the world as a problem that needs to be taken seriously. That's how long Spencer Elden said he put up with being associated with the naked swimming baby on the cover of Nirvana's Nevermind album.Ī lot has changed in 30 years.

Nirvana nevermind cover.