In Vogue, Amyl and the Sniffers: of photos, image rights and copyright 

By Trystan Go, Arts Law secondee (thanks also to Penny Bate, Arts Law secondee)

It’s now well-known that Amy Taylor, the lead vocalist of multi-award-winning Australian pub rock and punk band, Amyl and the Sniffers, has filed a complaint in the United States (US) District Court for the Central District of California, alleging that Los Angeles-based editorial photographer, Jamie Nelson sold pictures taken for a Vogue photoshoot as “fine art prints” without permission. In response to Taylor’s invoking US-legal concepts of right of publicity related to use of her likeness in addition to copyright infringement, Nelson countered that permission to exhibit and sell the works stemmed from her role as the photographer, and ownership of copyright in the images. The photographer also drew on the US Constitutional First Amendment right to freedom of expression, as well as and “industry practice.” On 4 May of this year (2026) the federal judge determined Taylor’s suit failed as a matter of law and dismissed it (with opportunity to correct) and later, Nelson filed copyright infringement counterclaims against the singer and band. We know that we at Arts Law are not alone in watching this one closely!

What happened: photoshoot arrangements 

In July 2024, Amyl and the Sniffers’ manager, Simone Ubaldi, requested that Nelson photograph the band for their new album. The photoshoot did not eventuate as the band told Nelson that it did not want her using its name, image and likeness for “non-Band-sanctioned, private commercial purposes”, including to promote Nelson’s own photography business and to sell merchandise or “fine art prints”. In March 2025, Nelson proposed that she would photograph Taylor “with the express intention that the resulting images… would be published exclusively in the July 2025 issue of Vogue Portugal”. Taylor agreed to the photoshoot on these terms and the resulting images were published as intended. 

When things went wrong 

At Arts Law we often advise artists who have experienced an unanticipated breakdown in their relationships with companies, stakeholders or with other artists with whom they are collaborating or working. Generally, they wish they had spoken with a lawyer about the arrangement before things went awry. In this instance, things went wrong in early September 2025. At that time, Nelson sent Taylor and Ubaldi a selection of photographs that she wanted to sell as “fine art prints” on her website. Ubaldi replied that Taylor objected to the proposed use and clarified that Taylor was not providing a licence or permission to sell the photographs as “fine art prints.” In fact, “the only permitted use of the same had been for inclusion in Vogue Portugal”. Nelson repeatedly rejected Taylor’s further requests for a licence. 

Later that month, Taylor discovered that Nelson was selling the photographs as “fine art prints” on her website and using them to promote her photography business on social media. Court documents allege that Nelson later “expanded their exploitation… by offering a specially designed ‘zine’ that consisted exclusively of both published and unpublished images from the Vogue Portugal article”. 

The outcome so far 

Judge George Wu denied Nelson’s anti-SLAPP motion and ordered that the parties attend mediation. In the US, anti-SLAPP motions prevent meritless lawsuits from being used to suppress public participation and free speech. 

Nelson maintains that she is the holder of copyright in the photographs and is entitled to sell them. The parties failed to settle the matter at mediation, and the case is scheduled for further hearings. Separately, Taylor was awarded US$ 9,145.08 in legal fees in respect of a civil harassment restraining order application filed by Nelson. 

The legal dispute remains unresolved, with the court having scheduled a status conference soon (June).  Taylor is expected to file an amended complaint. Nelson’s copyright counterclaim remains on foot. 

Of note for Australian artists and in an Australian context 

Many Australian artists face similar challenges involving unauthorised reproductions of their image. Having a lawyer review your arrangements, including in the form of a written contract, is a good idea for highlighting any jurisdictional issues you need to be aware of as the law differs from country to country. For our purposes now, it is also useful to consider how Australian laws would apply if the case were to be heard here. Unlike in the US, Australia does not have a right to publicity. If it were established that Nelson was indeed the owner of copyright in the photographs (the presumption in Australia unless a contractual arrangement varied that), Taylor would not be able to bring a copyright infringement claim against her in here. However, depending on the circumstances, Taylor may have legal remedies potentially in the areas of contract law, the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) and/or the law of passing off. 

The importance of contracts 

If the photoshoot took place with a talent agreement stating that the photographs were only to be used for the sole purpose of publication in the July 2025 issue of Vogue Portugal, Taylor may be able to bring a claim alleging that Nelson breached a term of their agreement. 

Photographers typically have their subjects sign a Model Release allowing the photographer to alter the photographs and publish them without the subject’s prior approval. If Taylor entered into such a release on these terms, she may not be able to bring a breach of contract claim. 

For all artists, it is a good idea to have a lawyer review any release or other contract in place in any arrangements you enter. If you’re an artist, Arts Law is always happy to help.  

Misleading or deceptive conduct 

The unauthorised publication of the photographs could constitute misleading or deceptive conduct by Nelson, contrary to sections 18 and 29 of the ACL. Taylor may be able to argue that due to her status as a celebrity known by the public as an endorser of luxury brands, Nelson’s conduct in publishing the photographs on her website and social media misleadingly led the public to believe that Taylor was endorsing Nelson’s photography business. The court may grant an injunction requiring Nelson to remove the photographs and issue a statement, for instance, to the effect that Taylor is in no way affiliated with or endorsing Nelson’s business. 

Passing off 

If Taylor is a sole trader or other business entity, imagining the scenario playing out in Australia, she may also be able to bring an action for passing off. This may be, for example, on the basis that she holds a reputation in the music industry and Nelson misrepresented that there was a connection between her and Taylor’s services. Importantly, to succeed in a claim for passing off, plaintiffs must prove that they have suffered or are likely to suffer harm to reputation.  

If you are experiencing similar issues, read Arts Law’s Unauthorised use of your image Information Sheet or contact us for advice.