Show of hands: who can name the naked baby on Nirvana’s iconic Nevermind album cover? (Without looking it up!) Yeah, me neither. Nor do I think I could identify an adult based on only ever seeing a baby picture of them. But as a 30-year-old man Spencer Elden, the skinny dipping baby of grunge rock, claimed his name and identity were “forever tied” to that album cover, accusing the photo of displaying his “genitals from the time he was an infant to the present day,” which makes it sound like there’s been an annual visual update of Spencer’s ween through the years when there most certainly has not been. This was back in 2021, when Elden sued Nirvana for sexual exploitation, alleging the cover image constituted child pornography. The legal filing at the time even argued that the dollar bill floating in front of Elden suggested the baby was a sex worker. Hello, hello, hello, how low?! That’s not merely my comment, but a broad paraphrasing of the judge’s ruling, who just found in favor of Nirvana:
The man who was photographed as a baby on the cover of Nirvana’s classic album Nevermind has failed in his attempts to sue the band for distributing child pornography.
A four-month-old Spencer Elden was pictured swimming naked underwater on the 1991 LP’s famous cover.
He sued the rock band and photographer Kirk Weddle, but a judge has ruled that “neither the pose, focal point, setting, nor overall context suggest the album cover features sexually explicit conduct”.
A lawyer for Nirvana said: “We are delighted the court has ended this meritless case and freed our creative clients of the stigma of false allegations.”
Mr Elden originally filed a lawsuit in 2021, arguing that his identity and name were “forever tied to the commercial sexual exploitation he experienced as a minor which has been distributed and sold worldwide”.
US District Judge Fernando Olguin dismissed it in 2022 because Mr Elden submitted after the 10-year limit for filing a civil case.
An appeals court overturned that decision, allowing Mr Elden to refile the case.
However, Judge Olguin has now ruled that, beyond the fact Mr Elden was naked, nothing came “close to bringing the image within the ambit of the child pornography statute”.
He likened the image to a family photo of a child bathing, and said it is “plainly insufficient to support a finding” of child pornography.
“Nudity must be coupled with other circumstances that make the visual depiction lascivious or sexually provocative,” Judge Olguin wrote, quoting from an earlier ruling.
The judge also cited factors including the presence of Mr Elden’s parents at the photo shoot, the fact the photographer was a friend, and the fact he had previously “embraced and financially benefitted from being featured on the album cover”.
Mr Elden’s legal team told Rolling Stone they “respectfully disagree” with the decision and plan to appeal.
“As long as the entertainment industry prioritized profits over childhood privacy, consent, and dignity, we will continue our pursuit for awareness and accountability,” said James R Marsh of the Marsh Law Firm.
Guess Spencer Elden now knows the meaning of “It’s fun to lose and to pretend.” Ever since he filed, I’ve wondered why Spencer was suing Nirvana when his parents consented to and accepted money for the photo. I mean, I know the reason why is money, angling for more than the $200 the Eldens were paid in 1991, but it still seemed legally iffy to me to hold Nirvana responsible. The argument that seemed more plausible to me, possibly, would be the parents suing because they only got a flat fee, instead of some kind of royalty based on albums sold. But nothing is more damaging to Spencer’s lawsuit than the fact that he’s on the record (album pun!) as having marked the 10th, 20th, and 25th anniversaries of Nevermind… by recreating the photo!! This whole case reeked of a money grab which, again, possibly could have been legit on the image licensing front. But calling the image “child pornography” is a bridge (song pun!) too far. As the judge noted, a naked human body is not necessarily sexual, it depends on the context. And the context of this photo is a four-month-old naked baby underwater in a pool. If there’s anything to be outraged over vis-à-vis child protections, it’s that the baby is at high risk of drowning.
Photos credit: AJ Barratt/Avalon, Mike Hashimoto/Avalon and via Instagram
Too bad the baby grew up to be a twat.
Has he sued his parents for trafficking him if he believes it’s so detrimental ? I haven’t heard that he is. This was a cynical money grab and nothing else.
The only reason his identity is tied to the album is because he used to go around signing copies of it for fans.
The dude literally spent years making money off of being the Nirvana baby, signing the album (for money) and re-creating the naked baby photo shoot as an adult (which is actually way more creepy- though i believe he was not nude as an adult)
This is just a money grab. I’m glad they didn’t give in to a small sum to appease this man. Because people like this, always come back for more money. Always.
Maybe this is an unpopular opinion but I don’t think it’s okay for parents to sell naked images of a child too young to consent. Not because it’s sexual but because none of us would want those baby bath photos out in the public sphere. That said, obviously no one would ever know it’s him if he didn’t make an issue out of it.
@Mightymolly, for sure, you are right. (And this absolutely goes for reality TV shows, “mommy bloggers,” etc. – we’ve seen again and again how many kids thrust into the spotlight in those circumstances grow up really bothered by it and consider it exploitation, and we definitely need more laws in place to protect children from this.)
That’s why, if this man genuinely felt he had been harmed by these images, the correct approach would have been to sue his parents for allowing this in the first place. He actually would have had a reasonable case against them, especially since they were the ones paid, etc.
But this being true (that parents have no business selling naked images of their children for profit) has nothing to do with Nirvana…
This is, what, the second or third time he’s tried to sue for this? A clear money grab and I’m glad the judge saw right through it too.
While I can’t agree with parents selling a naked pic of their newborn for an album cover, there was nothing sexual about this famous album cover. Hope this grifter can move on with his life a s go back bragging about peaking when he was just four months old…
That baby was not at high risk of drowning. This is the most common way of teaching babies to swim. It is safe and reliable. It alarms people seeing it, but it is not dangerous to the child.
Plus the photographer was right there with him, he could easily grab the baby if needed. Parents could’ve been in the pool close by as well.
I was ten years old when Nevermind came out. Spencer is now old enough to sue Nirvana and is still younger than me. Time is messing with my head, man.
Im on the babys side. I think less of the nirvana guys because of this. That baby help sell the album. Why does he have to sue. Pay him and make him sign something saying he wont sue again. Nirvana just looks cheap and petty at this point.
This is really good at all