Amy Taylor, lead singer of Australian rock band Amyl and the Sniffers, has settled her copyright dispute with American photographer Jamie Nelson out of court. The total value of all images from a Vogue Portugal shoot, if sold at full price, is more than $US10.5 million ($15 million). Ubaldi said Nelson can continue selling the limited-edition fine-art prints. Nelson has framed the outcome as a victory, while Ubaldi said the fight for Taylor’s right to say no was lost.
The settlement, reached on 28 October, saw both cases dismissed by mutual agreement with no money changing hands, according to the band's manager, Simone Ubaldi. Ubaldi stated that 'the judge didn't dismiss Amy Taylor's lawsuit; we came to a settlement and both Jamie's case and our case were dismissed by mutual agreement as part of that settlement'. Nelson, however, announced the lawsuit had been 'dismissed with prejudice', calling it a 'significant First Amendment [freedom of speech] victory'.
The dispute began in September 2025 after Nelson offered to sell prints from the May 2025 shoot, offering Taylor a 15 per cent cut estimated at US$70,000. Ubaldi, on Taylor’s behalf, declined to grant permission, and Taylor’s lawyers sent a cease-and-desist letter the following November. Nelson initially agreed to remove the images but later changed her mind, invoking her moral rights as the creator. Taylor argued she had consented only to an editorial shoot, not to commercial exploitation of her likeness, while Nelson maintained she had the right to sell the images as the copyright holder.
During the legal battle, Nelson accused Taylor and her partner of copyright theft for sharing one of the images on Instagram, seeking US$750,000 in damages, and also sought a restraining order against Taylor that extended to publication of emojis. None of those claims went to trial.
Ubaldi said Taylor never sought payment, only 'Amy's right to say no', a fight she says has now been lost. 'Jamie can continue selling the Vogue Portugal photos of Amy for millions of dollars, the copyright is hers,' Ubaldi said, adding a warning: 'Lie down with dogs and you'll get up with fleas. Be careful who you let into your world.'
Analysis
Why This Matters
- The case highlights the tension between a subject's consent and a photographer's copyright in the digital age.
- Without a signed model release, the settlement suggests photographers can commercially exploit editorial images, potentially affecting how artists and public figures negotiate future shoots.
- The potential US$10.5 million value of the photo series underscores the high financial stakes in such disputes.
Background
The dispute arose from a photoshoot for Vogue Portugal in May 2025. Taylor did not sign a model release. She consented only to editorial use, but Nelson asserted copyright ownership and later offered to sell limited-edition prints, offering Taylor a 15 per cent share. When Taylor refused, legal proceedings began.
Key Perspectives
Amy Taylor / manager Simone Ubaldi: Argued that Taylor only agreed to an editorial shoot, not commercial exploitation, and never sought payment, only the right to say no. Ubaldi insists both cases were dismissed by mutual agreement as part of a settlement, not a dismissal of Taylor's suit. She acknowledged Nelson retains copyright but warned others to be cautious about whom they work with.
Jamie Nelson: Framed the settlement as a First Amendment victory, asserting that the photographer, not the subject, owns the copyright. She continues to sell the images, claiming the outcome supports the rights of creators.
What to Watch
- Whether Taylor or other artists push for legislative changes on model releases and subject rights.
- Whether Nelson proceeds to sell the full series, potentially realising millions in sales.
- The possibility of future similar disputes between photographers and subjects in unscripted editorial settings.
Checked
12 claims in this story checked against 1 source: 11 supported.
Show each claim
- SupportedTaylor settled her copyright dispute with photographer Jamie Nelson out of court.Brisbane Times - Latest News: “A bitter copyright dispute between Amy Taylor, lead singer of Australian rock band Amyl and the Sniffers, and American photographer Jamie Nelson has been settled out of court”
- SupportedThe sale of the photos can continue.Brisbane Times - Latest News: ““Jamie can continue selling the Vogue Portugal photos of Amy for millions of dollars, the copyright is hers,” she says.”
- SupportedBoth cases were dismissed by mutual agreement.Brisbane Times - Latest News: “both Jamie’s case and our case were dismissed by mutual agreement as part of that settlement”
- SupportedThe photographer retains copyright to the images.Brisbane Times - Latest News: ““Jamie can continue selling the Vogue Portugal photos of Amy for millions of dollars, the copyright is hers,” she says.”
- SupportedThe images from the Vogue Portugal shoot would be worth more than US$10.5 million (A$15 million) if sold at full price.Brisbane Times - Latest News: “The total value of all images, if sold at full price, is in excess of $US10.5 million ($15 million).”
- SupportedUbaldi said Nelson could continue selling the limited-edition fine-art prints.Brisbane Times - Latest News: ““Jamie can continue selling the Vogue Portugal photos of Amy for millions of dollars, the copyright is hers,” she says.”
- SupportedNelson framed the outcome as a victory.Brisbane Times - Latest News: “Nelson, meanwhile, continues to frame the outcome as a victory for the little person and artistic integrity”
- SupportedUbaldi said Taylor’s fight for her right to say no had been lost.Brisbane Times - Latest News: “All they were ever fighting for, she added, “was Amy’s right to say no”. That fight has now been lost.”
- SupportedUbaldi said, “the judge didn't dismiss Amy Taylor's lawsuit; we came to a settlement and both Jamie's case and our case were dismissed by mutual agreement as part of that settlement”.Brisbane Times - Latest News: ““the judge didn’t dismiss Amy Taylor’s lawsuit; we came to a settlement and both Jamie’s case and our case were dismissed by mutual agreement as part of that settlement””
- SupportedNelson announced that the lawsuit had been “dismissed with prejudice” and called it a “significant First Amendment [freedom of speech] victory”.Brisbane Times - Latest News: “she announced the “entire lawsuit” between the two women “has been dismissed with prejudice”, framing it as a “significant First Amendment [freedom of speech] victory”.”
- SupportedThe settlement was reached on 28 October, with both cases dismissed and no money changing hands.Brisbane Times - Latest News: ““On 28 October, we reached a mutual settlement with Jamie Nelson where both cases were dismissed and no money changed hands,” Ubaldi says.”
- Partly supportedUbaldi said Taylor never sought payment.Brisbane Times - Latest News: “she never asked for a penny in relation to the ongoing sale of the pictures.”
