Nirvana sued over "Nevermind" cover photo

yet apparently he has chosen to participate in duplicate covers since…

The person in the photo has a name, Spencer Elden and appearing on the cover has had a lasting impact on his life.   This quote from Wikipedia gives some insight into his conflicts:

For the album's 10th, 17th and 25th anniversaries, Elden recreated the front cover shot for photographers. He wanted to do the 25th anniversary shoot nude but the photographer preferred that he wore swim shorts.[47] In 2003 he appeared on the cover of cEvin Key's album The Dragon Experience.[48] In a January 2015 interview with The Guardian, Elden said "I might have one of the most famous penises in the music industry, but no one would ever know that to look at me. Sooner or later, I want to create a print of a real-deal re-enactment shot, completely naked. Why not? I think it would be fun."[49] He told Time magazine in the following year "[When] I go to a baseball game and think about it: ‘Man, everybody at this baseball game has probably seen my little baby penis,’ I feel like I got part of my human rights revoked".

Based on the articles, appears to be a not too bright millennial looking for a payout.

I wonder how much the attorney is feeding this guy?

At least in articles, the guy thought he should be " buddies" with the band.

When I bought the record when it came out in the early 90’s, my first thought was “I wonder when the baby in the photo will sue the record company”. Now I know.  I will say the record cover is NOT child porn or any other kind of porn in my opinion.  That is like saying the statue of David is porn. 

Aside from the content, the article says that the band/label got no releases from the child’s parents. That in itself is a huge problem, and hard to believe a major label would market an album with no releases.

I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"], and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.

1964 - Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart