![\"Karl](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/a4f8ff87c18a5cd77f68e2e5bec557af09704ee24d7ae5e480221fbe9f8c0dfa.png\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
February 11, 2026 \u2014 12:04pm<\/p>\n
Save<\/p>\n
You have reached your maximum number of saved items.<\/p>\n
Remove items from your saved list<\/a> to add more.<\/p>\n Save this article for later<\/p>\n Add articles to your saved list and come back to them anytime.<\/p>\n Got it<\/p>\n AAA<\/p>\n It\u2019s 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\u2019s embroiled one of Australia\u2019s hottest musical acts drag her into court.<\/p>\n 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\u2019s website for as much as $US18,000 ($25,000) per print.<\/p>\n What\u2019s it all about?<\/p>\n Taylor insists she never gave permission for the commercial exploitation of those images beyond their publication in Vogue. Nelson \u2013 who bears more than a passing resemblance to the singer \u2013 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).<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n How did it start? <\/p>\n 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\u2019s manager, Simone Ubaldi, reached out to Nelson to engage her services for a photo shoot.<\/p>\n According to Taylor\u2019s court filing, \u201cthe images from that photo shoot were to be used for the band\u2019s upcoming album, for publishing in future documentaries, for inclusion in the band\u2019s special edition artwork, and for displaying on the band\u2019s website and social media accounts.\u201d<\/p>\n In other words, Nelson would be hired as a service provider, and the images were for the band\u2019s exclusive use across multiple platforms.<\/p>\n The shoot never happened, though, because the parties could not agree terms. Specifically, the court documents claim, the band was \u201cnot amenable to Ms Nelson\u2019s use of the band\u2019s name, image, and likeness on branded merchandise \u2026 displaying the band members\u2019 images in gallery shows, or using their images to promote Ms Nelson\u2019s photography business, and\/or to sell their merchandise, including Ms Nelson\u2019s \u2018fine art prints\u2019 or otherwise\u201d.<\/p>\n So, no girl on film?<\/p>\n Well, here\u2019s where it gets complicated.<\/p>\n Months after that mooted shoot fell over, Nelson reached out to Taylor to ask her to take part in an entirely different project, a \u201cVogue Portugal 12-16-page editorial shoot\u201d.<\/p>\n Taylor agreed, and her suit alleges that in doing so she granted \u201can implied license\u201d to use the images for the Vogue shoot alone, and \u201cat no point did Ms Taylor authorise \u2026 any other commercial use\u201d of the images.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n So, what\u2019s the problem? <\/p>\n It\u2019s what happened next that lies at the nub of the dispute.<\/p>\n 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\u2019s behalf, flatly declined.<\/p>\n Despite that, those prints are still available now via the site under the collective title Champagne Problems<\/a>. 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).<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n Legal letters at 15 paces\u2026<\/p>\n 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, \u201cin a complete reversal of her prior position\u201d, Nelson rescinded that commitment and instead asserted her moral rights as the creator of the works in question.<\/p>\n And then things got really ugly.<\/p>\n In early December, John Angus Stewart, Taylor\u2019s filmmaker partner (and the person responsible for the band\u2019s 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\u2019s website, overlaid with the words \u201cAmyl and the Sniffers ain\u2019t approved this scam. Don\u2019t buy slop.\u201d He added that the band \u201cprice things so you [fans] can afford it\u201d. Taylor and Ubaldi also made derogatory comments about Nelson in private exchanges with her.<\/p>\n Now, who\u2019s suing who?<\/p>\n On December 4, Nelson sent a cease and desist notice via email to Stewart, alleging defamation and \u201cunauthorised use of copyrighted material\u201d (namely the photo of Taylor, taken for Vogue Portugal, that he had posted from Nelson\u2019s website).<\/p>\n On December 22, Taylor filed her suit against Nelson, seeking among other things a full accounting of sales to date.<\/p>\n At the same time, Nelson has taken action through the courts against Taylor.<\/p>\n 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\u2019s 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 \u201clyrics, symbols, emojis, or coded messages that can reasonably be interpreted as threats, intimidation, or instructions to confront Jamie Nelson in person or online\u201d.<\/p>\n In support of the order, Nelson alleged: \u201cI 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.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/p>\n She also claimed she feels \u201cquite helpless in the face of Ms Taylor\u2019s extensive support network. She has a large team including fans, a publicist, a manager, booking agents, and a lawyer\u201d, and she \u201csimply cannot compete with the scale of resources and influence that she can mobilise against me\u201d.<\/p>\n In a highly unusual strategy, the photographer has proactively courted media coverage of the dispute, and attempted to frame Taylor\u2019s suit as a retaliatory action in response to her restraining order.<\/p>\n In an email to this masthead, she contends she is \u201cseeking 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.\u201d<\/p>\n Her body (and face), her choice?<\/p>\n Moral rights are at the centre of this dispute, but it\u2019s 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 \u2013 an editorial spread in Vogue Portugal.<\/p>\n The first she heard of Nelson\u2019s 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).<\/p>\n Taylor rejected the offer, saying in her response to the application for a restraining order \u201cthere was no royalty rate that would have made Ms Nelson\u2019s proposal attractive to me\u201d.<\/p>\n Having her name, image and the identity of the band \u201cattached to products that are affordable only to elite, wealthy buyers is horrifying to me,\u201d she wrote. \u201cIt 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.\u201d<\/p>\n Nelson asserts that she owns the images and is \u201cfully 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\u201d.<\/p>\n Taylor, though, believes she has the law on her side.<\/p>\n Under section 3344 of California\u2019s Civil Code<\/a>, the use of a person\u2019s image \u201cwithout such person\u2019s 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\u201d.<\/p>\n Win or lose, for the photographer there is a lot of money at stake. But for the singer, it\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n And for a Tiny Bikini<\/a>-wearing sister to try to take that away from her … well, it\u2019d be no wonder if she\u2019s singing U Should Not Be Doing That and It\u2019s Doing in Me Head<\/a> on high rotation.<\/p>\n Must-see movies, interviews and all the latest from the world of film delivered to your inbox. Sign up for our Screening Room newsletter.<\/a><\/p>\n Save<\/p>\n You have reached your maximum number of saved items.<\/p>\n![\"Amy](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/a61264e3a2c7fd815513e876b9d358fa135cc5ab.jpeg\")
Amy Taylor has become one of the most recognisable women in rock. Kristoffer Paulsen<\/p>\n![\"Declan](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/975cf0150abb25a289bf62737c3c799336b2c824.jpeg\")
Declan Mehrtens (left), Amy Taylor and Bryce Wilson of Amyl and the Sniffers at the 68th Annual Grammy Awards where they were nominated for best rock performance.Jordan Strauss\/Invision\/AP<\/p>\n