The question whether the Nevermind album cover meets the definition of child pornography is not at issue in this appeal.
Whether or not the photo caused damages is what the trial is for. A lawsuit being unlikely to win at trial isn’t grounds for dismissal. The defendants moved for dismissal because the plaintiff waited until he was 30 years old to sue for damages, which the initial judge agreed was too long. The appellate judges decided that since the image has been republished as recently as 2021, plaintiff has grounds to a trial since the recent republishing could be what caused the alleged damages.
My opinion is that the plantiff is just looking for settlement money. American trials are expensive for defendants even if they win. It’s often cheaper to settle out of court than to go to trial and win a slam dunk case.
Well, it ain’t child porn by any legal standards I’m aware of in the US.
I’m amazed the suit wasn’t dismissed out of hand because he has no actual damages
Here is the decision. Relevant part:
Whether or not the photo caused damages is what the trial is for. A lawsuit being unlikely to win at trial isn’t grounds for dismissal. The defendants moved for dismissal because the plaintiff waited until he was 30 years old to sue for damages, which the initial judge agreed was too long. The appellate judges decided that since the image has been republished as recently as 2021, plaintiff has grounds to a trial since the recent republishing could be what caused the alleged damages.
My opinion is that the plantiff is just looking for settlement money. American trials are expensive for defendants even if they win. It’s often cheaper to settle out of court than to go to trial and win a slam dunk case.