The cover of grunge band Nirvana’s famed 1991 album Nevermind is an iconic one that is immediately identifiable to fans young and old.
The cover of Nirvana’s Nevermind features a baby underwater, reaching for a dollar bill attached to a fishing line. According to Cobain, the idea for the cover came from a television program he saw about water births. Originally, stock photography of actual water births was going to be used, but the label’s art director deemed it to be too explicit.
Instead, photographer Kirk Weddle went to a pool for babies to take some photos. A few different samples were taken. The band settled on a photo of a four-month-old named Spencer Elden, who was the son of one of Weddle’s friends.
Reps from Geffen Records were allegedly concerned about the nudity of the child and its potential offensiveness. Cobain said that he would only compromise by having a sticker placed on the baby’s photography private parts that read “If you’re offended by this, you must be a closet p***phile.” The label eventually let it go.
Today, that very baby, now an adult, is actively suing the band for child exploitation.
On August 24, 2021, Spencer Elden launched a suit against the band members of Nirvana and Kurt Cobain’s estate over the cover, 30 years after the record was originally released. This was a little surprising to fans. Elden had repeatedly recreated the album as a kid and as an adult. He also has “Nevermind” tattooed on his chest.
However, Elden has said that he learned more about Kurt Cobain as a person, as well as his drug abuse. He felt a disconnection between himself and Nirvana in later years.
What Came of the Suit Filed by the “Baby” on the Cover of Nirvana’s ‘Nevermind’?
According to Elden, he received a number of unwanted contacts from strangers over the cover as a child. He even noted that he needed therapy to deal with the unwanted fame he received over simply being a model for an album cover.
In the suit, Elden said that he experienced “permanent harm” while Nirvana and others profited from the cover of the album. The lawsuit also noted that the image violates a number of federal laws related to child abuse. However, Nirvana nor their label were ever contacted about criminal charges.
The suit has since been thrown out several times. As of 2024, Elden is still attempting to revive the suit and get it through California courts.
Regardless of personal opinions on the matter, one can’t deny that it brings up an age-old question of consent. Was it ethical to take nude photos of a minor without their consent and profit from them? Regardless of intention, was it safe or morally right to feature an image of a naked baby on a now-iconic album? We’ll just have to wait and see where Elden’s suit goes.
Photo via Paul Bergen/Redferns
When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission.
Most Popular
Comments / 0