The 'Nevermind' Cover Baby is Suing Nirvana for Child Pornography
by Christian Holub
August 25, 2021


Next month marks the official 30th anniversary of Nirvana's seminal grunge album 'Nevermind', but the surviving members of the band may not be in a mood to celebrate.

Spencer Elden, who was photographed naked as a baby for the album's iconic cover art, filed a lawsuit on Tuesday accusing Nirvana and Geffen Records of profiting from child pornography of him.




Per legal precedent, Elden is asking for $150,000 in damages from each defendant, a list that includes former Nirvana members Dave Grohl, Krist Novoselic, and Chad Channing; Kurt Cobain's widow Courtney Love and two other managers of his estate; photographer Kirk Weddle and art director Robert Fisher; plus Geffen Records, Warner Records, and Universal Music Group.

The lawsuit also requests a trial by jury.




"Defendants knowingly produced, possessed, and advertised commercial child pornography depicting Spencer, and they knowingly received value in exchange for doing so," alleges the complaint, filed by Robert Y. Lewis of Marsh Law Firm.

"Defendants reproduced child pornography depicting Spencer knowing and intending that it would be distributed internationally and that they would receive value from such widespread worldwide distribution. Despite this knowledge, Defendants failed to take reasonable steps to protect Spencer and prevent his widespread sexual exploitation and image trafficking. Defendants knowingly benefited and continue to benefit from their participation in Spencer's commercial sexual exploitation."

https://ew.com/music/nevermind-albnevermind-album-cover-baby-spencer-elden-suing-nirvana-for-child-pornography/

Gee, what a crass opportunist.

Nearly thirty years after the album that displayed his full frontal nudity was released, he has the audacity to sue the band and everyone else for his "exploitation".

Read that he profited handsomely from his being the "Nevermind Baby". So once the novelty, what's the best thing to do but to sue for "child pornography" and similar offenses, simply because he was shown naked in the photo?

Nirvana and the record label understood the metaphor behind the image. It seems so 90's that the "model" behind the cover is currently living at home with his notoriety running out and that he is no longer profitable as the kid behind the iconic image. "Generation X Slacker Who Can't/Won't Get a Job".

Kurt Cobain even said that people who had problems with the image must have been "closet pedophiles". Strange to hear that now even coming from the very model who participated in the album cover image. The whole concept of "cash grab" is well at work here.

The lawsuit also requests a trial by jury.


Had jury duty today (we all ended being dismissed in about an hour), but this is a trial I think it’d be fun to be on the jury for.

To me, if there is going to be a lawsuit, it should be against his parents for their allowing such an occurrence to take place, but of course who ever has the deeper pockets is the direction that a person will always go in.

God bless you always!!!

Holly

The 'Nevermind' Cover Baby is Suing Nirvana for Child PornographyWhat a moron.... THAT ISNT CHILD PORN its an innocent picture!!!!

Gimme a break!!!

I'll bet that not only will the model win this civil suit, but that criminal charges against the parents and other involved adult entities will follow.

Kinda funny in a way, Cobain was always so outspoken against anyone who didn't share his moral compass.....now those buzzards finally come home to roost in the bed he made for them.

To me, if there is going to be a lawsuit, it should be against his parents for their allowing such an occurrence to take place, but of course who ever has the deeper pockets is the direction that a person will always go in.

God bless you always!!!

Holly

I was thinking the exact same thing. Nirvana & Co. could never have pulled this off if the parents didn't give their permission in the first place.

Think about it though, if a parent "procures" a minor for an other adult, for purposes the minor is judged to be incapable of consenting to, the mere fact that the parent consented does not absolve the perp of guilt.

They all get charged.

I agree that the parents in this case are ADDITIONALLY at fault, but that's not gonna be a get-out-of-jail-free card for Grunge Inc.

I'll bet that not only will the model win this civil suit, but that criminal charges against the parents and other involved adult entities will follow.

What took 30 years for them to do something about it? Charges would have been filed years ago, regardless of the model agreeing to it or not as an adult, if something criminal had gone on.

Another thing, doesn’t the material have to be made with the intent of sexual purposes in order for it to be “pornography”? Not all nudity is porn.

The image was meant to be a metaphor, you can’t control how the audience perceives it.

This is not porn, otherwise any photo of a naked baby is porn, and parents have been taking photos of their bare babies for over 100 years. I hope the case is dismissed.

Yes it should be dismissed..... This idiot has gotton mean and attitudish like most now...

My only question for the guy would be is this what it is that you want to be known for?

God bless you and him always!!!

Holly

P.S. Of course a situation like this one is when money may be what speaks the loudest.

What took 30 years for them to do something about it? Charges would have been filed years ago, regardless of the model agreeing to it or not as an adult.

The Cosby victims took years to summons the courage to seek redress.

if something criminal had gone on.

That will be something for a jury to decide.

It's often surprising what you can get 12 people to agree to, once a masterful manipulator is able to convince them that what they "do" can make a worthwhile difference.

parents have been taking photos of their bare babies for over 100 years.

Don't forget how genital-shy western culture has become. Can't remember seeing too many penises on Pampers commercials.

I suspect the pee-pee is going to be the smoking gun (lol) before this story is over.

Just as a side note, there is a psychosis of sorts that comes over otherwise sane people when exploitation of children is under the microscope, I knew Ray Buckey when I was living in Los Angeles, got his account of what went down, straight from his mouth. And I believe him.

But despite a lack of any convictable evidence there are still hoards of people, including police officers, who consider him to be "the big one that got away".

That is the mentality that this guy's attorneys are going to try and exploit

Another thing, doesn’t the material have to be made with the intent of sexual purposes in order for it to be “pornography”? Not all nudity is porn.



Ask Janet Jackson that question.

The jury selection process should prove interesting. I can pretty much guarantee the plaintiff's attorneys will work long and hard to disqualify anyone from the "woke" persuasion.

They are going to do their best to fill the jury with the same kind of people we have here who insist that they can no longer watch Bill Cosby reruns.

The Cosby victims took years to summons the courage to seek redress.
What makes that situation different is the fact that Cosby was accused of over the line physical contact. What is being dealt with now is just the publishing of a baby picture which only makes me wonder this. Who else is going to try to make a buck off such a move when its been done no telling how many times? Aren't babies used for the Angel Soft bathroom tissue labeling?

God bless you always!!!

Holly

Clearly there are differences. But at the same time, is it our venue to decide for the plaintiff what "embarrassment" means?

This guy had no more control over what he was subjected to than if someone had planted a hidden mini cam in a girls locker room, and posted the pix for public enjoyment.

The Cosby victims took years to summons the courage to seek redress.

What I meant is that the authorities would have looked into it already, or should have, if they suspected anything amiss.

This also isn't the first time that the 'Nevermind' baby spoke out against it.

Ask Janet Jackson that question.

Meaning?

Meaning?

Obscenity is a moving target. There are "forbidden fruit" parts of the anatomy that tend to provoke the self-appointed guardians of decency in our society. CBS endured quite a bit of grief over a simple wardrobe malfunction, which also precipitated stepped up censorship protocols that endure to this day on basic cable levels of cable service.

Let me be abundantly clear, I am not offended by the album cover, Nudity does not bother me.

But there is a whole slew of people out there who,.. when you combine the aspects of "genital exposure", a non-consenting minor, and today's #metoo environment,.....IF I WAS A DEFENDANT, I'd be especially anxious to settle, and make this go away, as soon and as quietly as possible. And, I doubt that the courts are anxious to set any precedents of leniency, that might be interpreted as supportive of sexual exploitation of minors. (a real mine field.)



Anybody know if the plaintiffs parents are still alive? It's possible that he might have waited till now,.. allowing them to pass on to negate any possible criminal jeopardy for them?

As an abstract parallel, some of the women accusing Ron Jeremy are claiming that while they consented to some of the acts he performed on them, that he went too far and did things that they did not consent to.....10-12 years ago

If they can decide retroactively that they were exploited, why shouldn't this guy be able to do as well?

Both (IMO) are taking advantage of the contemporary environment, to advance their cause as victims.

Seems to be working, too.

What would be really interesting to know, did they take this kid across state lines for the photo shoot? Which could bring the Mann act into the equation like it has for those two yoyo's down in Florida.

Appears as though at least some folks at Geffen Records had reservations at the time as well.

https://www.wkrn.com/news/nirvana-was-prepared-with-an-alternate-idea-for-the-cover-of-nevermind-according-to-kurt-cobain/

I think most people would feel that this lawsuit is without merit. Nirvana were a band who focused on some sort of "irony" and the image of a nude baby chasing a dollar bill on a fishing line in a swimming pool was understood by everyone thirty years ago. They "got" the idea and were not into the idea that a naked infant was what many "perverted" people would have themselves got. If this was the case, this image would have long been banned. People understood the metaphor the band was trying to say in the cover.

In related covers, the original image of U2's 'Boy' album featured the unclothed
figure of Radar, a friend of the band in their neighborhood. But the record label changed the photo to that of an "artsy" illustration of the band for sales in America.

What was the result of the original cover of 'Virgin Killer' by The Scorpions? That cover was done, allegedly, with the full consent of the model and her parents. But yeah, that was the 70's in Europe.

As well as the original cover of Blind Faith.

If any kid should be suing a band over a cover photo it’s this one :)

(By the way, that’s the drummer’s sister)


267435

If any kid should be suing a band over a cover photo it’s this one :)

(By the way, that’s the drummer’s sister)


I had recently read an article about the Bee Girl (https://www.republicworld.com/entertainment-news/music/what-happened-to-the-bee-girl-blind-melon-video-find-out.html). But it turns out Bee Girl in the music video isn't Bee Girl on the CD cover. Apparently they hired a look-alike for the video.

I had recently read an article about the Bee Girl (https://www.republicworld.com/entertainment-news/music/what-happened-to-the-bee-girl-blind-melon-video-find-out.html). But it turns out Bee Girl in the music video isn't Bee Girl on the CD cover. Apparently they hired a look-alike for the video.

Right. I think the story is (and someone can correct me if I’m wrong) it was an old photo of his sister on the cover, who of course had grown by the time he was in the band, so the video used someone more age appropriate to match the photo.

Right. I think the story is (and someone can correct me if I’m wrong) it was an old photo of his sister on the cover, who of course had grown by the time he was in the band, so the video used someone more age appropriate to match the photo.

I had no idea. I just assumed Bee Girl was Bee Girl all these years. Glad to learn the... bee-tails. :lol:

Nevermind Child Pornography Lawsuit Dismissed by Judge
by Nick Romano
Jan. 4, 2021


A judge dismissed a lawsuit filed by Spencer Elden, who was photographed as a naked baby on the cover of Nirvana's Nevermind album cover and, now as an adult, accused the band and Geffen Records of profiting off child pornography, according to court documents obtained by EW.

Elden's lawsuit, filed in August, stated the album's image art was taken and used without his consent, and that the nudity of the photo amounted to child porn.




Judge Fernando M. Olguin presided over the case at the U.S. District Court in Central California and dismissed the suit on Monday after Elden missed the deadline of Dec. 30 to oppose the defendants' motion to dismiss, according to documents obtained by EW.

In the motion to dismiss, it was argued the suit was time-barred and that Elden "spent three decades profiting from his celebrity as the self-anointed 'Nirvana Baby.'"

The dismissal was given "with leave to amend," so Elden could file a new complaint on the "defects" in the defendants' motion to dismiss. But he must do so by Jan. 13 or the suit will officially be dismissed without prejudice.

https://ew.com/music/nirvana-nevermind-child-pornography-lawsuit-dismissed/

Excellent...

What the hell is the big deal???

PEOPLE SUCK NOW IS THE BIG DEAL!!

Spencer Elden Refiles Child Porn Lawsuit against Nirvana
by Nick Romano
January 14, 2022


Spencer Elden's lawsuit over Nirvana's Nevermind album cover, on which he appeared naked as a 4-month-old in 1991, just isn't going away.

The now-adult Elden has filed a new version of the case, which accuses the band and Geffen Records of profiting off child pornography, reports the Associated Press.




A judge had dismissed the suit in December after Elden missed a court deadline to oppose the defendants' motion to dismiss it. But he ordered the dismissal "with leave to amend" and left Elden with a new deadline of Jan. 13 to refile, which he now has.

The new complaint includes a declaration from the album's graphic designer, the AP reports. Elden's lawyers argue this demonstrates how Nirvana and the label sought to display baby Elden's penis and exploit the image for commercial gain.

https://ew.com/music/nirvana-nevermind-baby-child-porn-lawsuit-refiled/

HE HELPED HIM REDESIGN IT!!!!!!!

What an idiot.... HE DESERVES NOTHING!!

Nirvana Wins 'Nevermind' Naked Baby Lawsuit after Judge Tosses Out Case (again)
by Emlyn Travis
September 3, 2022


Nothing can sink Nirvana.

On Friday, a California judge dismissed a child pornography lawsuit filed by Spencer Elden — who was photographed naked as a baby for the cover of the band's 1991 album, 'Nevermind' — once again because Elden did not file the suit during the 10-year statute of limitations, Reuters reports.

"In short, because it is undisputed that [Elden] did not file his complaint within 10 years after he discovered a violation… the court concludes that his claim is untimely," U.S. District Judge Fernando Olguin wrote in an eight-page ruling obtained by Rolling Stone.




Now, the judge has given his final verdict on the matter.

He added, "Because plaintiff had an opportunity to address the deficiencies in his complaint regarding the statute of limitations, the court is persuaded that it would be futile to afford plaintiff a fourth opportunity to file an amended complaint."




Following the verdict, Bert Deixler, a lawyer for Nirvana, told Reuters, "We are pleased that this meritless case has been brought to a speedy final conclusion."

Elden's attorney and representatives for Nirvana and Dave Grohl did not immediately respond to EW's request for comment on the court's decision.

https://ew.com/music/nirvana-win-nevermind-album-cover-lawsuit-naked-baby-judge-dismisses-again/

Elden's lawsuit, filed in August, stated the album's image art was taken and used without his consent, and that the nudity of the photo amounted to child porn.Screw him..... He knew they took it,he let them use it!!!!!

JUST ANOTHER IGNORANT MORON WANTING TO CAUSE PROBLEMS!!!



I reckon he isnt part of the band anymore.......

Screw him..... He knew they took it,he let them use it!!!!!

JUST ANOTHER IGNORANT MORON WANTING TO CAUSE PROBLEMS!!!



I reckon he isnt part of the band anymore.......

1) I don't know how he could've had any say in if they used it or not since he was literally a baby at the time.

2) He was never a part of the band.

3) Nirvana hasn't been a band since 1994.

Hmmmmmmmm then why make problems now??

Nirvana's 'Nevermind' Album Cover Child Porn Lawsuit Dismissed Again
by Staff Author
October 2, 2025


A lawsuit over Nirvana's 'Nevermind' album cover being considered child pornography has been dismissed again amid a legal battle that has gone on for years.

According to court documents obtained by PEOPLE, on Tuesday, Sept. 30, U.S. District Judge Fernando Olguin dismissed the lawsuit filed by plaintiff Spencer Elden, alleging that the 1991 album cover is child pornography.




Olguin ruled that there was no evidence that would lead a reasonable jury to label the photograph as pornographic.

"Other than the fact that plaintiff was nude on the album cover, nothing comes close to bringing the image within the ambit of the child pornography statute," said Olguin. He compared the image to a "family photo of a nude child bathing."

The judge also pointed out that Elden's parents were present at the photoshoot, and that Elden has "embraced and financially benefited from being featured on the album cover" for many years."

https://people.com/nirvana-nevermind-album-cover-child-porn-lawsuit-dismissed-again-11822948

It's been alleged that Spencer Elden was a big Nirvana fan, to the point of getting Nirvana tattoos on his body, and telling everyone who would listen that he was the baby on the cover of "Nevermind" the Nirvana album that went on to sell over 30 million albums Worldwide.

The problems with Elden supposedly started after he invited Dave Grohl and Krist Novoselic (the surviving member of the band), to his art show shortly before 2021, as Elden was some sort of artist. Grohl and Novoselic could not make it, and either declined, or did not respond to Elden's request.

In the aftermath, Elden turned on the band, and came up with this ridiculous lawsuit. His legal team is consistently finding new ways to sue the band, but all attempts as of this date have been dismissed by the courts. It's clear Elden, who is in his mid 30s, probably has mental health problems, and is hoping to force the band to pay him more money.

However, the band and their lawyers are determined to pretty much fight to the death, to prevent Elden from winning any suit brought against the band. I don't understand why the Judge in the case is continuing to allow Elden from potentially filing another frivolous lawsuit, and has not banned him from any further litigation.

Im sorry but the baby on the cover looks beautiful,he isnt an attudish adult idiot like he is now!!