Court Breathes New Life into Spencer Eldens Nevermind Cover Controversy: Nirvana Faces Renewed Lawsuit

the Nevermind baby is back in the headlines.. again. Spencer Elden, the now 32-year-old man who once floated nude toward a dollar bill on one of rock’s most iconic album covers (https://amzn.to/4l6tUk2), is giving the courtroom another go.

After being tossed out of court twice—once for missing a filing deadline and another time for falling outside the 10-year statute of limitations—Elden’s case against Nirvana, Universal Music, and a handful of big names is suddenly alive again. And this time, the stakes are different.

Why? Because the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals just cracked the case wide open, ruling that each time the album cover is republished, it might reset the statute of limitations. Translation? Every reissue, stream, or vinyl repress of Nevermind could be seen as a fresh injury. If that argument holds, this legal battle might have more legs than we thought.

So What’s The Case About?

Elden claims that the image of him as an infant—completely naked, underwater, chasing a dollar—amounts to child exploitation, and he’s seeking damages. But here’s where things get complicated (and more than a little contradictory)…

Despite suing Nirvana for alleged abuse and harm, Elden’s chest is inked with the word “Nevermind.” Literally. A permanent nod to the album he now calls exploitative. He’s also voluntarily recreated the image multiple times over the years, including on the album’s 25th anniversary.

So what gives?

Is this a guy who was wronged by an industry that never asked for his consent? Or is it a man caught in a push-pull between fame, trauma, and a rock legacy he never asked to be part of?

A Brief Dive Back Into History

A Brief dive back into history

Let’s rewind the tape. The now-infamous photo was snapped back in 1991 at the Pasadena Aquatic Center by photographer Kirk Weddle. Elden was just four months old, submerged and innocent. The dollar bill and fishhook were added in post-production. No one could’ve guessed it’d become the face of grunge.

But over time, that iconic image morphed into a legal landmine.

In his original 2021 suit, Elden named surviving Nirvana members Dave Grohl and Krist Novoselic, along with Courtney Love (widow of Kurt Cobain), as defendants—claiming sexual exploitation, negligence, and ongoing psychological damage.

But the courts weren’t buying it—at least not at first.

Now, with the appeals court’s new decision, it all comes down to whether republishing the image amounts to re-abusing the victim. It’s a thorny legal question, with massive implications not just for Nirvana, but for how we view and share media in the digital age.

Is Elden Undermining His Own Case?

Let’s be honest—there’s a lot of gray area here. Elden’s lawsuit is serious. The allegations aren’t something to shrug off. But the ink on his chest and his past participation in Nevermind photo recreations? Those muddy the water big time.

Some say it undermines his claims. Others say it’s part of a deeper trauma—where you cling to the very thing that harmed you. Like any rock and roll story worth its salt, there’s no easy answer.

Final Thoughts

As this thing heads back into federal court in L.A., the eyes of the music world are locked in. Will Elden’s lawsuit finally stick? Or will the contradictions in his past sink the whole thing?

Whatever happens next, one thing’s for sure: this case is pure rock and roll—messy, polarizing, full of angst, and soaked in the kind of legacy that refuses to die quietly.

Affiliate Statement

This article may contain affiliate links, which means RockTone could receive a small commission on the purchase of any products through such links at no additional cost to you!

Sources