\n<\/p>\n
\n\tNirvana<\/a> have prevailed (again) in the legal battle over the cover of Nevermind<\/a><\/em>, with a judge dismissing a lawsuit brought by Spencer Elden<\/a>, who claimed the naked photo of him<\/a> as a baby violated child pornography laws.<\/p>\n \n\tIn a ruling issued earlier this week, Judge Fernando M. Olguin said that the iconic photo of Elden swimming after a dollar bill on a fishing hook did not fall within the scope of what is legally defined as child pornography. He instead compared it to \u201ca family photo of a nude child bathing,\u201d adding that the image was \u201cplainly insufficient to support a finding of lasciviousness.\u201d<\/p>\n \n\tElden, who was four-months-old at the time he appeared on the Nevermind<\/a><\/em> cover<\/a>, filed his lawsuit in 2021, when he was 30. The suit was actually dismissed in 2022<\/a> after Olguin ruled that Elden had waited too long to file a civil suit. But an appeals court overturned that decision<\/a> in late 2023, allowing Eldin to proceed again.\u00a0<\/p>\n \n\tThis time around, Olguin\u2019s decision to dismiss the suit more directly addressed Elden\u2019s actual child pornography claims. As the judge noted, courts must consider multiple factors \u2014 outlined in the case United States vs. Dost <\/em>\u2014 when judging whether certain visual depictions of minors constitute child pornography. These include whether the focal point of the image is the genitalia or pubic area, whether the person\u2019s pose or attire is sexually suggestive or inappropriate, and whether the visual is \u201cintended or designed to elicit a sexual response in the viewer.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n \n\tOlguin ruled that, when it came to the Nevermind <\/em>cover, \u201cneither the pose, focal point, setting, nor overall context suggest the album cover features sexually explicit conduct.\u201d He continued: \u201cIn other words, other than the fact that plaintiff was nude on the album cover, no other Dost<\/em> factor comes close to bringing the image within the ambit of the child pornography statute.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n \n\tThe judge cited other relevant factors, including the presence of Elden\u2019s parents at the photo shoot, and the fact that the photographer, Kirk Weddle, was a close friend. He also said Elden previously \u201cembraced and financially benefitted from being featured on the album cover,\u201d noting the times he was \u201cpaid to reenact the photo,\u201d sold autographs on posters and other memorabilia, referred to himself as the \u201cNirvana baby,\u201d tattooed Nevermind<\/em> on his chest, and sent Weddle a \u201cthank-you postcard depicting a hand-drawn illustration of the album cover.\u201d<\/p>\n \n\tElden\u2019s \u201cactions relating to the album over time are difficult to square with his contentions that the album cover constitutes child pornography and that he sustained serious damages as a result of the album cover,\u201d Olguin wrote.<\/p>\n