Opinion Here's why many musicians are interested in NFTs - and fans should be, too It requires an image-by-image assessment using a test developed by a California federal court in 1986, which considers several factors, most of which appear to weigh against a finding of child pornography on the album cover. And that conduct is defined as involving sex acts or simulation, as well as “lascivious exhibition” of the genitals.Ĭourts recognize that the term “lascivious exhibition” is difficult to define. It means any visual depiction of “sexually explicit conduct,” where the production involves the use of a minor engaging in such conduct. The plaintiff is seeking monetary damages authorized by the federal criminal law prohibiting, and defining, child pornography.īut child pornography doesn’t describe just any picture with naked minors. Elden, now 30, claims this means Nirvana knowingly produced, possessed and advertised commercial child pornography with his image, and they knowingly received value in exchange for doing so. The cover ended up featuring him and his clearly visible penis underwater as he appeared to chase a dollar bill dangling at the end of a fishing line. When Spencer Elden was four months old, he was dunked in a swimming pool as part of a photo shoot for the album.

Nirvana most likely wouldn’t be liable for the picture on their cover, but readers googling this photo to see it for themselves do so at their own peril.

Nirvana nevermind cover art