Featured Image Credit: Niels van Iperen/Getty Images
Topics: Music, Celebrity, Social Media, US News
Rhiannon Ingle
Topics: Music, Celebrity, Social Media, US News
Any fans of the iconic rock band, Nirvana, which ruled the '90s, will know all about the Nevermind cover.
For any music heads out there who aren't clued up on the grunge lore, the album cover in question, which was released in 1991, featured a four-month-old baby swimming naked underwater as a dollar note is hooked on a fishing line in front of the youngster.
That little tot grew up to be Spencer Elden, who is now 34, and who later tried to sue the band and photographer Kirk Weddle for allegedly distributing child pornography.
But, in the latest update, Nirvana has now won the legal case with a judge ruling that 'neither the pose, focal point, setting, nor overall context suggest the album cover features sexually explicit conduct'.
Advert
A lawyer for Nirvana said (via the BBC): "We are delighted the court has ended this meritless case and freed our creative clients of the stigma of false allegations."
Elden's parents received a phone call from Weddle, a friend of theirs, asking if he could photograph Spencer for a project. They agreed, and in return, they were paid $200 (£158) for the picture.
Elden originally filed a lawsuit against the trio and Universal Music Group some years back 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'.
The following year, in 2022, however, US District Judge Fernando Olguin dismissed the suit as Elden submitted it after the 10-year limit for filing a civil case.
However, an appeals court overturned that decision, allowing Elden to refile the case.
On Tuesday (30 September), Judge Olguin has since ruled that, beyond the fact that Elden was naked, nothing came 'close to bringing the image within the ambit of the child pornography statute'.
Comparing the famous image to a family photo of a child bathing, he declared 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," he wrote, quoting from an earlier ruling.
The judge additionally referenced factors including the presence of Elden's parents at the photo shoot, the fact that the photographer was a friend, and the fact he had previously 'embraced and financially benefitted from being featured on the album cover'.
Elden had previously recreated the picture over the years, including in 2016, to celebrate the album's 25th anniversary, as he told The New York Post at the time that it was 'cool but weird to be part of something so important that I don’t even remember'.
The legal team of Elden told Rolling Stone that they 'respectfully disagree' with the decision and plan to appeal.
"As long as the entertainment industry prioritises 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.