The Nevermind Baby Sued Nirvana. Here's What Really Happened
Spencer Elden was four months old when he swam onto a famous album cover. Thirty years later he sued Nirvana, and the fight reached an appeals court twice.
It is one of the most recognizable images in music: a baby swimming underwater toward a dollar bill on a fishhook. The baby on Nirvana's Nevermind was a real kid named Spencer Elden, and three decades later he took the band to court. The case ran a lot longer, and got a lot more serious, than most fans realize.
Nevermind
Nirvana · 1991
A Swim Worth $200
The idea came from Kurt Cobain, who was fascinated by underwater births. Footage of real water births was quickly ruled out, so Geffen art director Robert Fisher hired a photographer to shoot a swimming baby instead.
200dollars
What the Elden family was reportedly paid for the shoot
That photographer, Kirk Weddle, was a friend of Spencer's father, Rick. Weddle shot the four-month-old at the Rose Bowl pool in Pasadena, California, and the family was reportedly paid about $200. The dollar bill was never in the water. It was added to the picture afterward.
Growing Up on the Cover
Elden did not exactly hide from the image. He re-created the pool shot for the album's 17th, 20th and 25th anniversaries, and he has Nevermind tattooed across his chest.
It's hard not to get upset when you hear how much money was involved.
Spencer Elden, TIME, 2016
His feelings were mixed long before any lawsuit, though. In a 2016 interview with TIME he called being part of it weird, and admitted it was hard not to get upset when he heard how much money was involved.
The Lawsuit
In August 2021, Elden sued in federal court in Los Angeles. His complaint claimed the cover amounted to child sexual exploitation under federal law and asked for $150,000 from each defendant. The list included Dave Grohl, Krist Novoselic, Kurt Cobain's estate and Weddle himself.
150Kdollars
Damages Elden sought from each defendant in 2021
Grohl kept his answer short. "Listen, he's got a 'Nevermind' tattoo. I don't," he told Vulture.
In September 2022, Judge Fernando Olguin dismissed the case. The reason was not standing. He ruled that Elden had waited too long under a ten-year deadline. Then in December 2023 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals revived the suit, finding that each new publication of the image, including a 2021 reissue, could count as a fresh injury.
Where It Stands
Back in the trial court, Olguin sided with Nirvana again on September 30, 2025, and this time he ruled on the substance. He found the cover is not child pornography, comparing it to a family photo of a nude child bathing, and noted that Elden had embraced and profited from the image for years.
Neither the pose, focal point, setting, nor overall context suggest the album cover features sexually explicit conduct.
Judge Fernando M. Olguin, 2025
Elden's team appealed once more in October 2025, which sends the case back to the Ninth Circuit. Court records from early 2026 showed that appeal still being briefed, with no ruling yet. Every trial court decision so far has gone Nirvana's way, but the appeals court gets the last word.
// Watch the Short
Subscribe on YouTube
// Quick quiz
Why did a judge first throw out Spencer Elden's lawsuit against Nirvana in 2022?
Judge Fernando Olguin ruled the suit came after a ten-year deadline. The Ninth Circuit revived it in 2023.
Sources
