It’s hard to picture Amy Taylor, the diminutive and dynamic frontwoman of Aussie rockers Amyl and the Sniffers, in anything other than gym shorts, crop tops and garish make-up. But she may soon have to suit up in something slightly more formal should an ugly legal dispute that’s embroiled one of Australia’s hottest musical acts drag her into court.
The case, which pits the Melbourne rocker against American photographer Jamie Nelson, is slated for a hearing in the US District Court in Los Angeles on February 13. And the central issue is who controls a batch of images of Taylor that were shot by Nelson for Vogue Portugal, and are now being sold on the photographer’s website for as much as $US18,000 ($25,000) per print.
What’s it all about?
Taylor insists she never gave permission for the commercial exploitation of those images beyond their publication in Vogue. Nelson – who bears more than a passing resemblance to the singer – insists she owns the images and has the right to exploit them as she sees fit. As the dispute has heated up, Nelson has also alleged she feels unsafe, and sought a restraining order against Taylor (more on that below).
The case has both commercial implications and moral ones, touching on the prickly question of the relative rights of the artist on one side of the camera and of the subject (who happens, in this case, to also be an artist) on the other.
How did it start?
The matter first became public when Taylor filed a complaint in the Los Angeles District Court on December 22 last year, soon after which it was picked up by the media. But its origins date back to July 2024, when the band’s manager, Simone Ubaldi, reached out to Nelson to engage her services for a photo shoot.
According to Taylor’s court filing, “the images from that photo shoot were to be used for the band’s upcoming album, for publishing in future documentaries, for inclusion in the band’s special edition artwork, and for displaying on the band’s website and social media accounts.”
In other words, Nelson would be hired as a service provider, and the images were for the band’s exclusive use across multiple platforms.
The shoot never happened, though, because the parties could not agree terms. Specifically, the court documents claim, the band was “not amenable to Ms Nelson’s use of the band’s name, image, and likeness on branded merchandise … displaying the band members’ images in gallery shows, or using their images to promote Ms Nelson’s photography business, and/or to sell their merchandise, including Ms Nelson’s ‘fine art prints’ or otherwise”.
So, no girl on film?
Well, here’s where it gets complicated.
Months after that mooted shoot fell over, Nelson reached out to Taylor to ask her to take part in an entirely different project, a “Vogue Portugal 12-16-page editorial shoot”.
Taylor agreed, and her suit alleges that in doing so she granted “an implied license” to use the images for the Vogue shoot alone, and “at no point did Ms Taylor authorise … any other commercial use” of the images.
The shoot took place in May 2025, and the images were published in Vogue in July. Taylor contends she received no payment for the shoot or the use of the images.
So, what’s the problem?
It’s what happened next that lies at the nub of the dispute.
In September, Nelson sent Ubaldi and Taylor a selection of images from the May shoot that she wanted to sell via her website as limited-edition fine art prints (on high-quality paper), and as a limited-edition zine. Ubaldi, on Taylor’s behalf, flatly declined.
Despite that, those prints are still available now via the site under the collective title Champagne Problems. There are 38 images for sale in the series, each in five iterations, ranging in price from $US1500 for a small print (33 x 50 centimetres, editions of 30) to $US18,000 for the largest (152 x 228cm, editions of three).
Nelson claims to have spent $US20,000 producing the works. If all prints were to sell at full price, she stands to make more than $US10.5 million.
Legal letters at 15 paces…
In November, lawyers for Taylor issued a cease and desist letter to Nelson, calling for her to withdraw the prints from sale. Within days, Nelson replied with an email promising to do so. But the next day, November 18, “in a complete reversal of her prior position”, Nelson rescinded that commitment and instead asserted her moral rights as the creator of the works in question.
And then things got really ugly.
In early December, John Angus Stewart, Taylor’s filmmaker partner (and the person responsible for the band’s videos, as well as the King Gizzard and the Lizard Wizard concert film Chunky Shrapnel), posted a story on Instagram in which he shared an image from Nelson’s website, overlaid with the words “Amyl and the Sniffers ain’t approved this scam. Don’t buy slop.” He added that the band “price things so you [fans] can afford it”. Taylor and Ubaldi also made derogatory comments about Nelson on her social media accounts.
Now, who’s suing who?
On December 4, Nelson sent a cease and desist notice via email to Stewart, alleging defamation and “unauthorised use of copyrighted material” (namely the photo of Taylor, taken for Vogue Portugal, that he had posted from Nelson’s website).
On December 22, Taylor filed her suit against Nelson, seeking among other things a full accounting of sales to date.
At the same time, Nelson has taken action through the courts against Taylor.
On December 9, she sought a restraining order against the singer, seeking to prevent her from approaching within 100 yards (about 91 metres) of her home and/or place of business (an unlikely scenario, given the band’s hectic touring schedule and base in Australia) and from posting on her internet or social media platforms. The application also seeks an order preventing Taylor from using “lyrics, symbols, emojis, or coded messages that can reasonably be interpreted as threats, intimidation, or instructions to confront Jamie Nelson in person or online”.
In support of the order, Nelson alleged: “I have had difficulty sleeping, concentrating, and performing my work. The ongoing uncertainty and fear of aggressive and vulgar public and private attacks have interfered with my ability to function normally and have caused significant emotional harm.”
She also claimed she feels “quite helpless in the face of Ms Taylor’s extensive support network. She has a large team including fans, a publicist, a manager, booking agents, and a lawyer”, and she “simply cannot compete with the scale of resources and influence that she can mobilise against me”.
In a highly unusual strategy, the photographer has proactively courted media coverage of the dispute, and attempted to frame Taylor’s suit as a retaliatory action in response to her restraining order.
In an email to this masthead, she contends she is “seeking protection from further harassment and intimidating conduct. More broadly, my position has been that I am the copyright holder of the photographic work at issue and retain the right to create and sell fine-art prints of photographs that I produced and financed.”
Her body (and face), her choice?
Moral rights are at the centre of this dispute, but it’s not just about copyright. While Nelson can claim to be the creator of the works, they only came about because Taylor consented to be part of their creation, and she insists that she did so on the understanding they were for one purpose only – an editorial spread in Vogue Portugal.
The first she heard of Nelson’s broader ambition was in September 2025, when the photographer offered her a 15 per cent cut of the proceeds of any sales, which she then estimated might total $70,000 (a Grammy nomination, support slot for AC/DC and a splash of controversy can do wonders for prices in the art market, apparently).
Taylor rejected the offer, saying in her response to the application for a restraining order “there was no royalty rate that would have made Ms Nelson’s proposal attractive to me”.
Having her name, image and the identity of the band “attached to products that are affordable only to elite, wealthy buyers is horrifying to me,” she wrote. “It is against everything I stand for and would be damaging to the inclusive, egalitarian brand that my bandmates and I have worked incredibly hard to establish over the last 10 years.”
Nelson asserts that she owns the images and is “fully within her legal rights to display, market, and sell fine art prints of her own copyrighted work. No approval is required from any third party”.
Taylor, though, believes she has the law on her side.
Under section 3344 of California’s Civil Code, the use of a person’s image “without such person’s prior consent … shall be liable for any damages sustained by the person or persons injured as a result thereof … and any profits from the unauthorised use”.
Win or lose, for the photographer there is a lot of money at stake. But for the singer, it’s about a far simpler, and more important, proposition: that she should be the only person who gets to decide how and by whom her image is exploited.
And for a Tiny Bikini-wearing sister to try to take that away from her … well, it’d be no wonder if she’s singing U Should Not Be Doing That and It’s Doing in Me Head on high rotation.
Must-see movies, interviews and all the latest from the world of film delivered to your inbox. Sign up for our Screening Room newsletter.
From our partners
Disclaimer : This story is auto aggregated by a computer programme and has not been created or edited by DOWNTHENEWS. Publisher: www.smh.com.au
