“Elden has alleged no facts, at all, about any barriers outside his control which prevented him from asserting a timely claim, and cannot plausibly allege any such facts to warrant tolling of the statute from 1995 to the time of filing, even if he were given leave to amend,” the motion concludes. The filing further notes that the child pornography claim has a 10-year limitations period, and the sex trafficking of children statute went into effect in 2003. For example, in 1992, Elden’s father sat for an interview with Entertainment Weekly, in which he confirmed his son was the “Nirvana Baby” on the now-iconic cover of Nevermind.'

Rather, it was Elden’s father and Elden himself who publicly celebrated Elden’s identity as the baby on the album cover, in a series of articles published beginning no later than 1992. 'Elden, however, does not allege that any of the Defendants was responsible for revealing Elden’s identity as the baby on the Nevermind cover,' it states.

“He has reenacted the photograph in exchange for a fee, many times he has had the album title ‘Nevermind’ tattooed across his chest he has appeared on a talk show wearing a self-parodying, nude-colored onesie he has autographed copies of the album cover for sale on eBay and he has used the connection to try to pick up women.”Īdditionally, Nirvana pointed out that the band wasn't responsible for revealing Elden's identity as the baby on the cover. “Elden has spent three decades profiting from his celebrity as the self-anointed ‘Nirvana Baby,’” the defendants' motion reads. Nirvana, Courtney Love and Universal Music have now filed a motion to have the case thrown out, stating that Elden's claims that the album cover violates the federal child pornography statute and federal sex trafficking of children statute are 'barred by the applicable statute of limitations,' according to Digital Music News.

Nirvana nevermind cover story