Amyl and the Sniffers singer sues US photographer over ‘exploitation of her image’ | Amyl and the Sniffers

The lead singer of an Australian pub rock and punk band has accused a photographer of “exploitation of her image” and is suing her in a United States court docket.

Amy Louise Taylor, the lead vocalist of award-winning Melbourne band Amyl and the Sniffers has filed a complaint within the district court docket of California, accusing photographer Jamie Nelson of promoting footage taken for a Vogue journal photoshoot as “fine art prints” with out her permission.

The criticism reveals that the saga started in July 2024, when the band’s supervisor, Simone Ubaldi, contacted Nelson requesting she {photograph} them for his or her upcoming album.

However, the shoot fell by in August when the band “expressly communicated” to Nelson it didn’t need her utilizing their title, picture and likeness to advertise her personal pictures enterprise, and to promote merchandise, together with “fine art prints”, the doc states.

“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.”

Months later, in the direction of the tip of March, Nelson contacted Taylor to request that she pose for a photoshoot “with the express intention that the resulting images … would be published exclusively in the July 2025 issue of Vogue Portugal”, court docket paperwork state.

Taylor agreed to pose, however “at no point” authorised or licensed Nelson the suitable to make some other business use past the unique journal concern, the criticism alleged.

The photoshoot occurred in May and the pictures from that shoot appeared within the July concern of Vogue Portugal as deliberate.

_{Sign up: AU Breaking News e-mail}

However, on 4 September Nelson despatched Taylor and Ubaldi a presentation of chosen photographs that Nelson indicated she needed to promote as “fine art prints” on her web sites.

“Immediately” after receiving Nelson’s proposal, Ubaldi 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 photographs 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, the court docket paperwork state.

Nelson continued to hunt a licence from Taylor, who “rejected each such request, and no such agreement was ever reached”, the paperwork state.

Making Taylor’s rejection of Nelson’s “efforts to exploit the [photoshoot for] commercial purposes perfectly clear”, Ubaldi wrote to Nelson on 15 September: “We are not interested in a buyout of these images … I cannot be clearer about this – [Taylor] does not want you to sell images of her face, or her body as fine art prints.

“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. 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.”

But on 20 September, Taylor found that Nelson was promoting “fine art prints” containing the photographs on her web site, and utilizing the photographs to advertise her business enterprises, court docket paperwork state.

“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,” it alleged.

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

The criticism acknowledged that “fans recognize Ms. 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 alleges Nelson’s use of Taylor’s picture has been more likely to “cause confusion or mistake, or to deceive” concerning 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”.

Nelson has been contacted for remark.