In a ruling that’s reignited debate over art, nudity and consent, Spencer Elden, the four-month-old infant immortalised on Nirvana’s legendary 1991 album Nevermind, has lost his high-profile lawsuit claiming the iconic cover amounted to “child pornography.”
The now-33-year-old Elden, who was photographed swimming naked underwater toward a dollar bill on a fishing hook for the album’s cover, sued Nirvana’s surviving members, the late Kurt Cobain’s estate, and photographer Kirk Weddle in 2021. He argued the image constituted “commercial sexual exploitation” that has haunted him his entire life.
But in a decisive blow to his case, US District Judge Fernando Olguin ruled this week that the photograph—despite featuring nudity—“does not come close” to meeting the legal definition of child pornography.
“The pose, focal point, setting, and overall context do not suggest sexually explicit conduct,” the judge wrote, comparing the image to “a family photo of a child bathing.” He stressed that nudity alone is not enough—it must be paired with “lascivious or sexually provocative” elements, which he found entirely absent.
Judge Olguin also noted key contextual factors: Elden’s parents were present at the shoot, the photographer was a family friend, and Elden himself had previously embraced his fame, even autographing Nevermind covers and selling merchandise tied to his identity as the “Nirvana baby.”
Nirvana’s legal team hailed the decision as a victory for artistic freedom. “We are delighted the court has ended this meritless case and freed our creative clients from the stigma of false allegations,” they said in a statement.
Elden’s lawyer, James R. Marsh of the Marsh Law Firm, disagreed. “As long as the entertainment industry prioritises profits over childhood privacy, consent, and dignity, we will continue our pursuit for awareness and accountability,” he told Rolling Stone, adding they plan to appeal the ruling.
The case has sparked fierce discussion online: Is the Nevermind cover a bold piece of 90s countercultural art—or a violation of a child’s rights? For now, the courts have sided with the former. But with an appeal likely, the baby who chased a dollar bill into rock history isn’t done making waves just yet.