IP Law Daily, PUBLICITY RIGHTS NEWS: Photographer sued for selling Amy Louise Taylor’s pictures taken for a magazine photoshoot as ‘fine art prints’ without permission, (Jan 5, 2026)

By Carolin Dennis, B.Sc., LL.B., LL.M.

The complaint accuses a renowned American photographer Jamie Nelson of selling pictures taken for a Vogue magazine photoshoot as “zine” and “fine art prints” without Amy Louise Taylor’s permission for the purpose of soliciting sales, marketing, promoting, and advertising of the defendants’ products and/or services.

Amy Louise Taylor (Taylor) has filed a complaint against Jamie Nelson Studios LLC (JNS), Jamie Nelson (Nelson), and Does 1 through 10 (collectively, defendants), in the federal district court for Los Angeles for sales of the “zine” and “fine art prints” without authorization or license to use her name, image, and likeness for any purpose other than publishing in the July 2025 issue of Vogue Portugal. Taylor seeks to recover the profits, appropriate compensatory remedies, and fees and costs necessitated by the defendants’ conduct (Taylor v. Jamie Nelson Studios LLC, No. 2:25-cv-12069 (C.D. Cal. filed on Dec. 22, 2025)).

Taylor is a globally renowned singer and songwriter of the ARIA Award-winning and Grammy-nominated Australian pub rock and punk band, Amyl and the Sniffers (Band). Beyond the high-octane live performances and ARIA Award-winning music, Taylor’s unique personal style and outspoken activism on issues like women’s rights have also established her as a notable figure in fashion and a compelling, unfiltered voice in contemporary culture, the complaint alleges. Fans recognize her likeness for its rebellious spirit and blend of a distinctive Australian “pub rock” aesthetic—featuring mullets, footy shorts, and an unrefined style—with the style of 1970s punk. She has built a substantial fan following based upon not only her musical talent, but also her image and personal brand, according to the complaint.

JNS is a photography business owned and operated solely by Nelson. Taylor alleged that the defendants also own and operate the photography agency, Jamie Nelson Fine Art Photography (JNFAP), and the websites with the following URLs: https://jamienelsonfineartphoto.com and www.jamienelson.com (Defendants’ Websites).

According to the complaint, on or about March 29, 2025, Nelson, acting in her capacity as owner and operator of JNS and JNFAP, contacted Taylor to request that she pose for a photo shoot in May 2024 (Subject Photo Shoot). The Subject Photo Shoot was to be conducted by the defendants with the express intention that the resulting images of Taylor, along with her name and likeness (Subject NIL) would be published exclusively in the July 2025 issue of Vogue Portugal. Given the nature of the intended use of the Subject NIL Taylor agreed to pose for Nelson and granted the defendants an implied license to use the Subject NIL exclusively for the limited purpose of publishing her photographs in Vogue Portugal.

The Subject Photo Shoot was conducted in May 2025. Thereafter, several images from that shoot were displayed in the July 2025 issue of Vogue Portugal as planned. Taylor was never paid or compensated by the defendants or by Vogue Portugal for posing for the Subject Photo Shoot. Likewise, while Taylor provided an implied license to Vogue Portugal for the publication of the Subject NIL, she entered into no written agreement for that use, or any expanded use, by Vogue Portugal or any third party.

On September 4, 2025, Nelson sent Taylor and Simone Ubaldi, manager of the Band, a presentation of selected images containing the same that Nelson indicated she wanted to sell as “fine art prints” on the Defendants’ Websites. Immediately after receiving Nelson’s proposal, Ubaldi, speaking on Taylor’s behalf, informed Nelson that Taylor objected to such use of the Subject NIL. Ubaldi explained that Nelson did not have Taylor’s license or permission to sell the Subject NIL as “fine art prints” or “zines”; that the only permitted use of the same had been for inclusion in Vogue Portugal. Nonetheless, the defendants continued to seek a license from Taylor to sell “fine art prints” of her image. Taylor rejected each such request, and no such agreement was ever reached.

On September 20, 2025, Taylor discovered that the defendants were indeed selling “fine art prints” containing the Subject NIL on its Website, and otherwise using the Subject NIL to directly or indirectly promote the defendants’ commercial enterprises. On November 14, 2025, the defendants were notified via Taylor’s counsel, that Taylor had not authorized or licensed the use of her name, image and likeness in the prints then being sold on the Defendants’ Websites and/or displayed on the defendants’ social media accounts. On November 17, 2025, Nelson responded to the cease and desist correspondence with her apologies and assurance that the offending products/prints would be removed from the Defendants’ Website on that same day.

On November 18, 2025, Taylor’s counsel again asked the defendants to comply with Taylor’s initial cease and desist correspondence by reporting the sales they had made to date of the “fine art prints” depicting the Subject NIL. The counsel also reminded the defendants that all images of Taylor must be removed from their sites not merely those offered for sale as those also were displayed for commercial purposes. In a complete reversal of her prior position, Nelson responded by stating she would not remove the images of Taylor from the Defendants’ Websites and/or any of the defendants’ digital platforms.

Taylor alleged that the defendants use a variety of advertising, marketing, and promotional techniques to promote Nelson’s photography services and solicit sales of her work. Such techniques include displaying and selling images of celebrities on online platforms such as the defendants’ retail websites and various social media accounts.

According to the complaint, the defendants’ Instagram and Facebook accounts continue to feature images containing the Subject NIL without license or authorization from Taylor. Taylor argued that the defendants continue to knowingly and without her consent sell images containing the Subject NIL on its Websites and to display said images on the defendants’ Instagram and Facebooks accounts for the purpose of advertising, selling, or soliciting purchases of the defendants’ products and/or services. Further, the defendants’ unlicensed and unauthorized commercial use of the Subject NIL has directly caused them to earn substantial profits.

Claims, remedies sought. Taylor is seeking a jury trial and asserts three causes of action: (1) false association in violation of the Lanham Act, (2) statutory misappropriation of publicity, violation of California Civil Code § 3344, and (3) common law misappropriation of name or likeness. Among other relief, Taylor asks the district court for judgment against the defendants for the defendants’ profits from the unauthorized use of her name, image, and likeness in an amount to be proven at trial. Taylor also seeks compensatory damages; punitive damages; prejudgment and post-judgment interest; attorneys’ fees and costs; and any other relief as the court deems proper.

The Case is No. 2:25-cv-12069.

Judge: Wu, G.

Attorneys: Jonathan S. Pink (Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP) for Amy Louise Taylor.

Companies: Jamie Nelson Studios LLC

News: PublicityRights TechnologyInternet Trademark CaliforniaNews