“Like creators of other controversial album covers, the defendants sought to garner attention by using a sexually explicit image that intentionally focused on Spencer’s carefully positioned enlarged genitals,” his lawyers said, according to BBC News. Fisher also told the band that they could have digitally removed Elden’s genitalia on the photo that had been used.Įlden says the band deliberately decided to use the entire image. He said he had presented a different example of the cover using a stock image of a different baby whose genitalia were not exposed. Robert Fisher who was an art director for the album’s cover had been named as a co-defendant in the initial lawsuit but was removed from the suit. law allowed victims to sue using the federal sex trafficking of children statute.Įlden said that Nirvana “intentionally” marketed the image that was “child pornography” to promote the 1991 album and that they earned of millions of dollars from the album’s sales. Nirvana’s lawyers had said that “this premise is absurd” and pointed out that the photo was taken before U.S.

The newest filing drops the allegation that the photo was sex trafficking when the image was taken.Įlden was 4 months old at the time of the photograph, Entertainment Weekly reported.

Nirvana nevermind cover image