Since I first read about Spencer Elden deciding after all these years, to sue Nirvana for featuring him on the Nevermind Album Cover because he feels traumatized by being an unable to consent victim of child pornography, a little more context has emerged. In the New York Times, his lawyers say Spencer has suffered a lifelong loss of income earning capacity and according to one of tha baby's team of lawyers, Maggie Mabie, "He hasn't met anyone who hasn't seen his genitalia". Okay, valid points. But it's not as though he's recognizable from that naked photo, unless he somehow reveals that he's THAT baby. I wouldn't be able to pick the baby out of a crowd of one unless he or someone pointed him out. And while I sympathize that he had no choice in the matter of being on Nirvana's most famous album, why doesn't he sue the parents who volunteered his photo? Didn't they ultimately make decisions for him before he was outta pampers? As for the lifelong loss of earning capacity, what's that all about? His lawyers say the details will come out when/if it comes to trial. BTW, Spencer's clearly had mixed feelings about being a famous naked baby, saying on Nevermind's 25th anniversary that it's "Cool but weird to be a part of something so important that I don't remember". Universal Records hasn't commented since Elden filed suit, but it has most certainly increased views of the photo that's firing Elden's complaint and may have also had the effect of adding to the sale of more than 30 million copies of Spencer and his genetalia that are already in everyone's 90's record collection.