Amy Louise Taylor, the outspoken frontwoman of Melbourne pub-punk band Amyl and the Sniffers, has launched legal action in the United States, accusing a photographer of exploiting her image without consent. The case centres on photographs taken for an international fashion magazine shoot, which Taylor says were later sold and promoted for commercial gain against her clear wishes.
Taylor has filed a complaint in a California district court alleging that photographer Jamie Nelson unlawfully sold and marketed images taken during a Vogue Portugal photoshoot, turning them into “fine art prints” and a self-published zine without authorisation. According to court documents obtained by the Guardian, Taylor argues that the images were licensed for one specific purpose only: publication in Vogue Portugal’s July 2025 issue.
The dispute began in mid-2024, when the band’s manager, Simone Ubaldi, initially contacted Nelson about photographing Amyl and the Sniffers for an album project. The shoot never went ahead. Court filings state the band made it clear at the time they did not want their name, image, or likeness used to promote a photographer’s business or sold as merchandise. As a result, the album shoot was abandoned before any photos were taken.
Months later, Nelson reportedly approached Taylor with a new proposal for a magazine shoot intended exclusively for Vogue Portugal. Taylor agreed. The photoshoot took place in May 2025, and the images appeared in the magazine as planned. Taylor’s complaint stresses that at no stage did she grant permission for any secondary commercial use, including prints, zines, or promotional material for Nelson’s photography work.
Tensions escalated in early September when Nelson allegedly sent Taylor and her management a presentation of selected images, outlining plans to sell them as fine prints via her website. Ubaldi responded immediately, stating that Taylor objected to any such use and had never licensed the images beyond the magazine publication. According to the filing, Nelson continued to pursue a licence despite repeated refusals.
In a message dated 15 September, Ubaldi spelt out the band’s position in blunt terms. He wrote that Taylor did not want images of her body sold as fine art prints and that, had Nelson been transparent about her intention before the shoot, Taylor would have declined to participate. “We are not interested in a buyout of these images,” the message said. “I cannot be clearer about this.”
Taylor asserts that by 20 September, they had already begun selling the photographs online, despite the objection. The complaint also alleges that Nelson expanded the use of their images by releasing a specially designed zine made up entirely of published and unpublished photos from the Vogue feature. Taylor argues this move directly contradicted her expressed wishes and may have been retaliatory.
The lawsuit also claims that images of Taylor continue to appear in Nelson’s Instagram and Facebook accounts without permission, promoting her commercial services. Taylor’s legal team argues this unauthorised use risks misleading fans into believing she endorses or is affiliated with those products.
The main focus of the case is control over identity. The complaint describes Taylor’s image as central to her public persona: a deliberately cultivated mix of Australian pub-rock grit and classic punk style, defined and emphasised by mullets, footy shorts and a raw, unpolished attitude. That image, the filing says, is inseparable from her professional success and brand value.
Taylor claims that Nelson’s actions are a violation of her image rights under US law, including issues related to false endorsement and the right of publicity. She says the ongoing use of her likeness has caused and will continue to cause financial loss and reputational harm.
