Naked "Nirvana Baby" Sues for Child Pornography

[JustJustWhy]

Apologies for the Daily Mail link!

Nirvana's famous naked baby SUES band for child pornography: Man - now aged 30 - who appeared on iconic cover of 1991 Nevermind album claims $2.5m damages for being 'exploited as a minor'

I can't work out if this is something perfectly acceptable as this explicit image was used without his consent or just a blatant claim for monetary gain.

AIBU:
YES - He absolutely should make this claim
NO - Just a bid for money!

www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-9924579/Nirvana-estate-Kurt-Cobain-sued-exploitation-claims-1991-Nevermind-album-cover.html?ito=uk-showbiz-newsletter&utm_source=cvdb&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Showbiz_Live%202021-08-25

I think he is completely unreasonable to play this card when over the years he has done NUMEROUS interviews and "recreations" at the very same pool (albeit wearing swimming trunks).

Had he not engaged with the media throughout the years NO ONE would know what he looked like now. It's not like he'd walk past you in the street and you'd think , "I recognise him from being the 4 month old baby on the Nevermind album". He brought that on himself and I therefore have no sympathy for him.

How would anyone know who it was if he wasn't always after publicity?!?!
Millions of babies in the world. In all those years I'd never noticed his genitals etc
Yes - these days you'd not use that pic. But think he's just seen the ££

Like others have said from articles he has been quoted in..doesnt this stem from being rejected for art project or something? Does sound a little bit bitter...