Lawyers representing the legendary grunge band Nirvana, have sought to dismiss the case brought against the band by Spencer Elden. Fans might know the now 30-year-old man as the naked infant chasing the dollar bill, underwater, on the iconic cover of the 1991 album, ‘Nevermind’. 

Elden sued that the image taken by the band, when he was four years old, was ‘trafficking’ and ‘child pornography’, and its publication has negatively impacted his life. The self-anointed Nirvana baby has also alleged the band made millions off the image, whereas he didn’t see any share of the money. 

Also Read | Man photographed as baby on ‘Nevermind’ cover, sues band for ‘sexual exploitation’

However, the lawyers have disputed this account, stating he spent nearly three decades profiting from being on the album cover. They’ve underscored his financial gains, like re-enacting the photo for money and selling signed copies on e-bay. He has clearly basked in its glory as well since Elden has ‘Nevermind’ tattooed across his chest. As per his lawyers, being the Nirvana baby has aided his personal life as well, since Elden has been known to use this connection to pick up women. In a 2008 MTV interview, the model jokingly referenced the album, saying that he went with the line “You want to see my penis … again?”. 

Also Read | Who inspired Rob Pattinson’s Batman? Director Matt Reeves says Kurt Cobain

Further, Elden’s interview from 2011 shows a very different viewpoint from considering the album art as porn. He stated, “I have thought about that. It’s kind of like being a secret porn star, but not really. But it’s not even porn! It’s more like a Farrah Fawcett poster.”

Also Read | Yum or yuck? Food trends that went viral this year

Nirvana’s lawyers have also argued that both counts of pornography and sex trafficking are past their statutes of limitation, as per federal government rules. The filing states, “The complaint was filed on August 24, 2021. But the ‘Nevermind’ cover photograph was taken in 1991. It was world-famous by no later than 1992. Long before 2011 [when the statute of limitations for the porn and trafficking charges had expired].” They have also noted that Elden was aware of this alleged violation and wrongdoing for decades. 

Also Read | In Pics | World celebrates Christmas amid omicron threat

Meanwhile, the legal team has contended that the image does not have a ‘lascivious or sexually provocative’ context, and thus cannot be called pornographic, while the content was never used to sell the young model into any sexual activities, which negates the charge of trafficking.