Amyl and the Sniffers’ Amy Louise Taylor sues US photographer over “exploitation of her image”

Amyl & The Sniffers lead vocalist Amy Louise Taylor has sued a US photographer over “exploitation of her image”.

• READ MORE: How Amyl and the Sniffers discovered their voice: “The world’s filled with junk. I don’t wanna be contributing to that”

Taylor filed the criticism within the district court docket of California, accusing photographer Jamie Nelson of promoting photos taken for a Vogue Portugal photoshoot as “fine art prints” with out her permission.

Court paperwork element that the difficulty started in July 2024, when the band’s supervisor, Simone Ubaldi, reached out to Nelson to {photograph} the band for his or her upcoming album,  ‘Cartoon Darkness’.

However, the shoot later fell by, after the band “expressly communicated” to Nelson that they didn’t need her to make use of their title, picture and likeness to advertise her personal pictures enterprise, and to promote merchandise, together with “fine art prints”, per paperwork obtained by the Guardian.

“As explained to Ms. Nelson, the Band was zealously protective of their image and did not want these used for non-Band-sanctioned, private commercial purposes such as Ms. Nelson had proposed. As a result, the photo shoot was never conducted,” the criticism reads.

Months later, Nelson allegedly contacted Taylor, requesting to {photograph} her “with the express intention that the resulting images … would be published exclusively in the July 2025 issue of Vogue Portugal,” the paperwork declare.

Taylor agreed to the photoshoot, however allegedly “at no point” authorised or licensed Nelson the best to make some other business use past the unique journal subject.

The photoshoot occurred in May, and the photographs appeared within the July subject of Vogue Portugal. However, per the filings, on September 4, Nelson despatched Taylor and Ubaldi a presentation of chosen pictures that Nelson indicated she wished to promote as “fine art prints” on her web site.

“Immediately” after receiving Nelson’s proposal, Ubaldi claims to have knowledgeable Nelson that Taylor objected to such use of her picture and defined that Nelson didn’t have Taylor’s licence or permission to promote the pictures as “fine art prints” or “zines” and that “the only permitted use of the same had been for inclusion in Vogue Portugal”.

Taylor alleged that Nelson was “well aware of [her] antipathy to such an expanded exploitation of her image” and that no settlement existed authorising Nelson to promote copies of the photoshoot.

Per the paperwork, Nelson continued to hunt a license from Taylor on a number of events, to which Taylor “rejected each such request, and no such agreement was ever reached”.

Ubaldi additionally reportedly wrote to Nelson on September 15, saying: “We will not be keen on a buyout of those pictures.

“If you had been transparent with her in advance of the shoot about your desire/intentions to sell the photos, she would have said no to the shoot,” Ubaldi allegedly wrote. “If you had any notion or desire to sell pictures of [Taylor] to recoup your costs, you should have disclosed this beforehand. We simply would have said no to the shoot.”

Filings go on to say that on September 20, Taylor found that Nelson was promoting “fine art prints” containing the images on her web site, and utilizing the pictures to advertise her business enterprises.

“Moreover, after the foregoing interactions, [Nelson] expanded their exploitation … by offering a specially designed ‘zine’ that consisted exclusively of both published and unpublished images from the Vogue Portugal article,” the criticism acknowledged.

“Not only was this done without Ms. Taylor’s permission and in direct contravention of her wishes, but it appears to have been done in retaliation of Ms. Taylor’s demands that [Nelson] stop their unlawful exploitation of Ms. Taylor’s name, image and likeness for [her] commercial interest,” the paperwork allege.

Nelson’s Instagram and Facebook accounts proceed to function Taylor’s pictures with out licence or authorisation from her, the criticism claims.

The criticism acknowledged that followers recognise Taylor’s 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”.

“Accordingly, Ms. Taylor has built a substantial fan following based upon not only her musical talent, but also her image and personal brand,” the criticism continues. It goes on to alledge that Nelson’s use of Taylor’s picture has been more likely to “cause confusion or mistake, or to deceive” relating to Taylor’s endorsement of Nelson’s business actions.

It additionally alleges Taylor will “continue to suffer” hurt, together with “lost profits and damages to her reputation, brand, and business interests”.

NME has reached out to Nelson for remark. She has but to reply formally to the declare.

In different information, Amyl & The Sniffers’ lately picked up bar tabs of $35,000 for followers in Melbourne, after their free present was cancelled on the final minute.

Last yr, Amyl & The Sniffers spoke to NME about their rising fanbase and the way they discovered the inspiration for ‘Cartoon Darkness’.

“We’ve evolved in so many different ways,” stated drummer Bryce Wilson. “Further than pub rock or punk rock kinda thing. Not better or worse or anything, just different branches of a tree.”

Speaking about how their newest album noticed them deal with wider societal points, together with prejudice and sexism, Taylor added: “I used to be intimidated by politics. I didn’t develop up round it that a lot. I completed highschool, however barely. It’s very easy to really feel form of ashamed of your self for not being positive the way to get your foot in it, or to get the arrogance to talk out about stuff.

“I don’t just wanna be singing about crap. The world’s filled with junk – layers and layers and layers of junk. Pointless crap. I don’t wanna be contributing to that.”