“Neither the pose, focal point, setting, nor overall context suggest the album cover features sexually explicit conduct,” Judge Fernando M. Olguin wrote in a ruling obtained and first reported by Billboard. “This image – an image that is most analogous to a family photo of a nude child bathing – is plainly insufficient to support a finding of [child pornography].”

In statement to Billboard, Nirvana’s attorney Bert H. Deixler said: “We are delighted that the court has ended this meritless case and freed our creative clients of the stigma of false allegations.” An attorney for Elden did not immediately return a request for comment on the ruling.

Originally released Sept. 24, 1991, Nevermind reached the top spot on the Billboard 200 in January 1992 and ultimately spent 554 weeks on the chart. The legendary grunge album has sold more than 30 million copies and is widely considered one of the most influential in the history of rock music.

The album’s cover — a nude infant swimming in a pool chasing after a dollar attached to a fishhook — was long interpreted as an edgy critique of greed and capitalism. But in a 2021 civil lawsuit, Elden claimed it was something else entirely: the kind of “lascivious” display of a minor’s genitals that’s prohibited under federal child pornography statutes.

“Spencer’s true identity and legal name are forever tied to the commercial sexual exploitation he experienced as a minor,” his lawyers wrote at the time.

Legal experts expressed doubts about the case when it was first filed, saying the image likely didn’t meet the specific definition of child porn – and that Elden had seemed to repeatedly embrace the photo and his role in rock history before he decided to file a lawsuit.

In 2022, Judge Olguin dismissed the case for a simpler reason: That Elden had waited far too long to file it in court, violating the statute of limitations. But an appeals court overturned that ruling a year later, reviving the lawsuit and sending it back to a trial judge for more litigation.

Two years later, the judge has now dismissed the case yet again – and this time, for more substantive reasons. Though he acknowledged that a naked child was clearly depicted in the image, the judge said it was not the kind of sexually-charged – the legal term is “lascivious” – photo that would break the law.

“Nudity must be coupled with other circumstances that make the visual depiction lascivious or sexually provocative,” Judge Olguin wrote, quoting from an earlier ruling.

The judge also questioned why Elden had seemed to endorse the photo many times over the years. He cited instances where the man reenacted the photo, sold autographed memorabilia, and even referred to himself as the “Nirvana baby.”

“Plaintiff has, for many years, embraced and financially benefited from being featured on the album cover,” the judge said. “[His] actions relating to the album over time are difficult to square with his contentions that the album cover constitutes child pornography and that he sustained serious damages as a result.”