More than three decades after the release of Nirvana’s Nevermind, the band has once again prevailed in court against claims that its famous album cover amounts to child pornography. On September 30, 2025, U.S. District Judge Fernando Olguin dismissed the revived lawsuit brought by Spencer Elden, the man who appeared as an infant on the record’s cover in 1991.
Elden, who has pursued claims since 2021, alleged that the photo—depicting him unclothed and swimming underwater toward a dollar bill—was sexually exploitative. However, Judge Olguin ruled that the image, while containing nudity, does not meet the definition of child pornography under federal law because it does not depict sexual conduct or lascivious exhibition.
The Origins of the Lawsuit
In 2021, Elden filed suit against Nirvana’s surviving members Dave Grohl and Krist Novoselic, the estate of Kurt Cobain (represented by Courtney Love), photographer Kirk Weddle, and several record labels. He claimed that the album cover had subjected him to lifelong harm and that its continued reproduction—particularly with reissued editions—was a form of ongoing exploitation.
The complaint alleged violations of federal child pornography statutes and argued that the image had been distributed worldwide without his consent, generating profit for the defendants while harming him personally and professionally.
Initially, the case was dismissed in 2022, with the court holding that Elden’s claims were barred by statutes of limitations. At that time, Judge Olguin found that Elden had waited too long to bring the suit, given that the album had been publicly available since 1991.
A Temporary Revival in the Ninth Circuit
Elden’s case seemed to be finished until December 2023, when the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals revived the lawsuit. The appellate court reasoned that Nirvana’s ongoing distribution of the album, including its 30th anniversary reissue, could be considered fresh acts of publication. That decision opened the door for Elden to pursue damages for what he argued were continuing violations.
The ruling raised new legal questions about whether republication of long-standing works, especially in digital formats, might reset the clock on legal claims. It also signaled to some observers that courts might take a closer look at the intersection of intellectual property, reissues, and alleged exploitation.
Judge Olguin’s 2025 Ruling
Despite the Ninth Circuit’s revival, Judge Olguin dismissed the case once more in 2025. His opinion emphasized that the Nevermind cover image does not meet the statutory criteria for child pornography. He noted that the law requires either sexually explicit conduct or a lascivious exhibition of the genitals, neither of which applied to the photo.
Olguin wrote that the image was more akin to a family snapshot of a naked child at bath time than to anything sexually exploitative. While the nudity is plain, the court found “nothing comes close” to the type of depiction prohibited under federal law.
The judge also acknowledged Elden’s past public statements and actions, including participating in photo recreations of the album cover as an adult and appearing at publicity events tied to his role as the “Nevermind baby.” Those facts undermined his claims of severe, ongoing harm caused by the image.
Responses from Both Sides
Nirvana’s legal team applauded the ruling, reiterating their position that the lawsuit was meritless and that the defendants had faced baseless, damaging accusations for years. They stressed that the cover was never created with exploitative intent and has been universally recognized as a work of art rather than pornography.
Elden’s attorneys did not immediately comment following the dismissal. However, throughout the litigation they have maintained that their client was exploited for commercial gain without his ability to consent and that the image’s continued reproduction perpetuated that harm.
Cultural and Legal Significance
The dismissal brings renewed attention to one of the most unusual and high-profile lawsuits involving art, music, and child protection laws. For the music industry, the ruling underscores judicial reluctance to stretch child pornography statutes to cover artistic images where no sexual element exists.
Legal experts say the decision reinforces the principle that mere nudity alone is not illegal. Instead, there must be a sexually explicit component for an image to fall within the scope of child exploitation laws. This distinction matters not just for musicians and record labels but also for artists, filmmakers, and photographers whose works may feature nudity.
At the same time, the Ninth Circuit’s earlier revival of the lawsuit highlights an evolving legal landscape. The question of whether republished works—such as anniversary reissues, streaming editions, or digital remasters—can create new liability remains unsettled in certain contexts. Future cases may grapple with how ongoing distribution interacts with claims of exploitation.
Broader Impact on Elden and the Public
Elden’s case has drawn mixed reactions from the public. Some sympathize with his claims, arguing that he was too young to consent to his image being used in such a globally famous way. Others point to his history of embracing the image and question whether his lawsuit was motivated more by publicity or potential financial gain than by genuine harm.
Regardless of motives, the lawsuit forced courts to carefully examine how artistic works intersect with child protection laws and how evolving technology changes the nature of distribution and liability.
Conclusion
Judge Olguin’s 2025 ruling represents another clear victory for Nirvana and its associated parties. After years of litigation, the court reaffirmed that the Nevermind album cover is not child pornography under U.S. law.
For Nirvana, the decision closes another chapter in the long legacy of one of rock’s most iconic records. For the broader legal community, the case serves as a reminder of how cultural history, artistic expression, and statutory protections often collide in unexpected ways.
As courts continue to confront similar questions in the digital era, the Nevermind case will likely stand as a reference point—both for the boundaries of child exploitation law and for the protection of artistic expression.
Stay informed on landmark legal battles shaping entertainment law, intellectual property, and civil litigation. If you’re an attorney seeking to build your career in these practice areas, explore the latest opportunities on LawCrossing. With the most comprehensive database of legal jobs across the nation, LawCrossing helps you find positions in top firms, in-house counsel roles, and public interest organizations. Advance your career today by visiting LawCrossing.
