Amy Taylor and Jamie Nelson pose in front of Nelson’s house in a court update graphic announcing that Taylor’s federal claim against Nelson was dismissed with prejudice and Nelson’s copyright counterclaims continue.

Amy Taylor v. Jamie Nelson Lawsuit: September 14, 2026 Federal Court Ruling––Lanham Act Claim Dismissed with Prejudice

September 15, 2026

FEDERAL COURT DISMISSES AMY TAYLOR’S FEDERAL CLAIM WITH PREJUDICE, REJECTS AMYL AND THE SNIFFERS’ JURISDICTION CHALLENGE AS NELSON’S COPYRIGHT CLAIMS MOVE FORWARD

On September 15, 2026, U.S. District Judge George H. Wu issues final rulings in Amy Louise Taylor v. Jamie Nelson Studios LLC et al. Case No. 2:25-cv-12069-GW

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA — September 14, 2026 — Following a hearing today in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, U.S. District Judge George H. Wu stated that he would adopt his tentative rulings on all three motions before the Court, significantly narrowing singer Amy Taylor’s lawsuit against Los Angeles photographer and artist Jamie Nelson while allowing Nelson’s federal copyright counterclaims against Taylor and Amyl and the Sniffers to move forward.

Under the rulings adopted by the Court, Taylor’s main federal claim against Nelson is dismissed with prejudice. Amyl and the Sniffers’ challenge to the Court’s personal jurisdiction is denied. Taylor’s remaining California right-of-publicity and implied-contract claims survive dismissal at this stage, although the Court expressly questioned whether portions of Taylor’s contract theory may be preempted by federal copyright law.

FEDERAL LANHAM ACT CLAIM DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE

Taylor amended her complaint after the Court previously identified deficiencies in her federal false-endorsement claim.

Judge Wu found that many of Taylor’s new allegations “do not allege facts at all, but rather present legal argument or bare legal conclusions.”

The Court further characterized a number of Taylor’s allegations as “merely conclusory [statements], unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences.”

Taylor had alleged that Nelson used Taylor’s celebrity as a principal means of selling products and photography services. The Court rejected that characterization, observing that “none of the facts asserted in support of these legal conclusions actually justify the conclusions.”

Judge Wu again concluded that Nelson had made the threshold showing that the challenged use “is part of an expressive work.” The Court found that Taylor’s amended allegations did not “move the needle” and concluded that Taylor “cannot survive the Rogers test.”

The federal Lanham Act claim is therefore dismissed with prejudice, preventing Taylor from repleading that claim against Nelson in this action.

AMYL AND THE SNIFFERS REMAINS IN THE U.S. LAWSUIT

The Court also rejected an attempt by Australian company Amyl and the Sniffers to remove itself from Nelson’s federal copyright counterclaims by challenging the California federal court’s jurisdiction over the Band.

The Band had additionally argued that Australia would be a more convenient forum for the dispute, effectively seeking to require Nelson to pursue claims against it in Australia rather than in the United States.

Judge Wu noted that Taylor herself chose California as the forum when she filed the lawsuit and that Taylor and the Band are represented by the same counsel.

The Court also considered the dispute’s substantial connection to California, including that the photographs were created in Los Angeles, Nelson and her studio operate in California, and Nelson’s counterclaims arise under United States copyright law.

Amyl and the Sniffers’ jurisdictional challenge was denied. The Band remains a party to the lawsuit, and Nelson’s copyright counterclaims against the Band may proceed in the United States.

THE FEDERAL FALSE-ENDORSEMENT CLAIM IS OVER

Taylor’s Lanham Act claim had been a central federal component of the lawsuit since she filed the action in December 2025.

Taylor alleged that Nelson’s use of the photographs and Taylor’s name falsely communicated that Taylor endorsed or sponsored Nelson’s products and photography business.

The Court rejected Taylor’s amended federal theory and dismissed the claim with prejudice.

The dismissal means Taylor cannot simply amend the complaint again and attempt to bring the same federal Lanham Act claim against Nelson in this case.

TAYLOR’S STATE CLAIMS SURVIVE FOR NOW — BUT THE COURT SIGNALS SKEPTICISM

The Court declined at this stage to dismiss Taylor’s California statutory and common-law right-of-publicity claims and implied-contract theory.

But Judge Wu accompanied that ruling with an express warning concerning Taylor’s contract claim.

The Court explained that if Taylor’s contract theory is based entirely on Nelson’s exercise of rights belonging to her under the Copyright Act, the claim “would likely be preempted.”

Judge Wu further wrote that:

“the Court is, at this stage, is somewhat skeptical of Plaintiff’s claim”

because the theory appeared, “in no small part,” to rest upon Nelson’s:

“mere reproduction and display of the Subject Photographs, their own copyrighted work.”

The Court specifically directed Taylor to identify conduct allegedly violating the purported agreement that goes beyond Nelson’s “mere exercise of their exclusive rights under the Copyright Act.”

The distinction is significant: Taylor’s state claims remain alive for now, but the Court has expressly questioned whether her implied-contract theory can ultimately impose liability merely because Nelson reproduced, displayed or otherwise exercised copyright rights in photographs Nelson herself created and owns.

THE CASE MOVING FORWARD

Following today’s hearing and Judge Wu’s decision to adopt the tentative rulings on all three motions, the litigation is substantially narrower than the lawsuit Taylor originally filed.

Taylor’s federal false-endorsement claim is dismissed with prejudice.

Her California right-of-publicity and implied-contract theories remain, although the Court has skepticism.

Amyl and the Sniffers’ attempt to avoid the California federal court has been denied.

Nelson’s federal copyright counterclaims against Taylor and the Band therefore remain in the action and may continue toward the next stages of litigation.

STATEMENTS FROM JAMIE NELSON

“For nearly a year, I have maintained that my photographs are expressive artistic works and that creating, displaying, exhibiting and selling my own photography is fundamental to my work and livelihood as an artist. I am grateful that the Court has now dismissed the main federal claim with prejudice.

“Today was a major win for photographers, artists, and creators everywhere. Celebrity status does not trump an artist’s intellectual property. Copyright belongs to the creator, and today was an important reminder that artistic rights do not become less meaningful simply because the person in front of the camera is famous.”

“Amy Taylor chose to bring this dispute in California, and today the Court rejected the Band’s attempt to escape my copyright infringement counterclaims. I am pleased that Amyl and the Sniffers will remain in the case as I continue pursuing my copyright claims against them.”

“This case has forced me to learn more about copyright law than I ever expected to know, but it has also reinforced why those protections matter. Artists need to know their rights — that authorship, ownership and artistic expression cannot simply disappear because the person appearing in the work wants to control it.”

“The little guy can stand up too. We have rights, we have a voice, and we have the legal system to defend what we create. You do not have to surrender just because the other side has more money, more power, or a bigger platform. I’m proof that artists can fight back.”

“I am grateful that the law still protects artists. Copyright law protects our ownership, and the First Amendment protects our ability to create and express ourselves. Those protections are what allow artists to create art and make a livelihood from it.”

“Today’s ruling matters because artists need the right to create, show, and earn a living from their work. If the subject of an artwork can simply veto what an artist creates or prevent them from exhibiting and profiting from it, artists cannot survive. And if artists can’t make a living, eventually we lose the art, photographs, books, documentaries, and cultural record they leave behind.”

BACKGROUND

The photographs at issue were created during a May 2025 shoot in Los Angeles that Nelson initiated, produced, and financed entirely herself. Nelson spent approximately $20,000 of her own money producing the shoot, which ultimately resulted in Taylor appearing on the cover of Vogue Portugal, a publication Nelson has worked with for more than a decade. Nelson received no production funding or photography fee from Taylor or the Band.

The photographs were subsequently published in the Vogue Portugal editorial “Champagne Problems.” Taylor later sued Nelson over Nelson’s use, display, and sale of photographs from the shoot, including fine-art prints. Nelson has maintained that the photographs are her own copyrighted artistic works and that the ability to display, exhibit, and sell them is part of her livelihood as an artist and photographer.

Nelson subsequently asserted federal copyright counterclaims against Taylor and added Amyl and the Sniffers as a counterclaim defendant, alleging that Taylor and the Band used Nelson’s copyrighted photographs for promotional purposes without authorization or payment to Nelson.