1. The cover is now just shy of 30 years old
2. Why did the parents not take any legal action at the time of release?
3. Why did the parents not take any legal action since the release?
4. Why did the plaintiff not take any legal action at the age of majority?
5. Why did the plaintiff take part in recreations in later years?
6. Why did no other official agency take any form of legal action since the release of the album?
7. Why would the label release the album without being confident it is not what the plaintiff claims it is?
8. Does anyone truly believe the members on Nirvana had nefarious intent when the album cover was created?

On the surface this does seem like an easy target money grab and back channel attempts have failed and now we are in the public. While the estate could fight the case, it would be easier to make a resonable cash payment to make this case go away and to make a substantial donation in support of true victims of the claim the plaintiff makes. In the big picture, the money that would be required in the payouts is chump change.

While I do not discount that the plaintiff may have suffered some to some degree, I agree with others comments and do not believe the cover rises to the level of a pornographic image.



He should be honored to have such a famous weenie much like King David. 
...honored to have the image altered to include his adult ’version’....

But just ’it’.

Not the bulk of him, no.

Let’s see if he thinks that’d maybe be fun, and a great personal advert...or one can hope....;)

The 'Spencers' Keel' cover, with the original on the flip side.....