Nirvana wins lawsuit over Nevermind cover depicting alleged child sexual abuse
Spencer Elden, the man famously photographed as a baby on the cover of Nirvana’s groundbreaking 1991 album “Nevermind,” recently made headlines for attempting to sue the band twice over claims that the image constituted child sexual abuse. However, a US federal judge has now thrown out the lawsuit for a second time, emphasizing that the image did not meet the criteria for child pornography.
US District Judge Fernando Olguin dismissed the lawsuit filed by Elden, stating that no reasonable jury would find the picture pornographic. Despite Elden’s claims of sexual exploitation, the judge ruled that the image fell short of being offensive. Nirvana’s attorney, Bert Deixler, expressed relief that the court had put an end to what he referred to as a baseless case, clearing the band and its members of false allegations.
Focusing on Elden’s objections to the use of the photograph taken by photographer Kirk Weddle, which portrayed him swimming naked towards a dollar bill on a fish hook, the lawsuit targeted not only Nirvana but also Universal Music Group. Elden alleged that the depiction on the album cover had caused him ongoing personal harm, leading to legal action in 2021, only to face dismissal in 2022 on the grounds of being time-barred. However, the 9th Circuit reversed this decision in 2023, allowing the case to move forward.
Following a second dismissal by Judge Olguin, who likened the image to a “family photo of a nude child bathing” rather than child pornography, the controversy surrounding Elden’s participation on the album cover has once again been put to rest. The lawsuit, which had implicated Nirvana members Dave Grohl and Krist Novoselic, as well as Kurt Cobain’s widow Courtney Love, has ultimately failed to gain legal traction.
While Elden’s failed attempts to hold Nirvana accountable for his portrayal as a baby on the album cover have sparked public interest, the legal system has deemed the image non-pornographic according to established guidelines. The judge’s decision to dismiss the case for the second time signifies the end of a contentious chapter that sought to challenge artistic expression and the boundaries of acceptable representation in visual art.