Man Photographed as Baby on ‘Nevermind’ Cover Sues Nirvana, Alleging Child Pornography

Ah, that would explain Chuck Norris’ lack of musical sophistication, then.


I’ve been thinking…

  1. If anybody in this solar system is honestly thinking that picture can be considered child pornography, isn’t it the responsibility of the State to bring criminal charges against particular defendants?

  2. If this guy is honestly taking the ‘hey I was exploited’ route, shouldn’t he be suing his parents who (regardless of whether or not they got the paperwork done correctly and regardless of how much they got paid) permitted the exploitation allowed the photography session? How much is he willing to sue his own parents for? $200? I gotta say, there’s other parents who have done a lot worse to their kids who deserve to get sued or criminally charged long before the Eldens are even considered.

  3. I wonder if Mr. Elden is not doing this so much for the cash grab or even for the principal of the matter or even with an expectation of winning, but for the meager amounts he might be able to squeeze out of entities who want to interview him about this matter. “Yeah, you wanna talk about my client’s case? Schedule it with his agent – yeah, the same guy who’s helping him set up his gallery exhibit. Oh yeah, go see his exhibit, too, 'cause he gets a cut of the door fee.”


FWIW, I never thought the album, band, or picture were impressive in any way.

They were parodied by Weird Al. "Nuff said.

And then he parodied his own parody for the Simpsons.

Tweeted - Weird Al sues Weird Al over album cover.

This strikes me as pretty ridiculous. However, I’m not sure if this changes anything about Anne Geddes taking babies and dressing them up as cabbages, or whatever she does.

The Van Halen Baby thinks the Nirvana Baby needs to sit the fuck down and stop being so whiny-assed.

Here’s Kevin Underwood’s take at Lowering the Bar.

He points out that, in addition to the assertion that the picture is pornographic being obviously absurd, the statute of limitations (10 years after the victim becomes aware of the existence of the material or turns 18, whichever is later) has passed, so the entire lawsuit is frivolous on its face and may lead to sanctions against the attorneys involved. (There is no criminal statute of limitations for child pornography, but this is a civil case)