Amy Taylor's Lawsuit is Targeted for Complete Dismissal as Prominent Copyright Attorney Stephen Doniger Joins Photographer Jamie Nelson's Defense

June 15, 2026

PROMINENT COPYRIGHT ATTORNEY STEPHEN DONIGER JOINS PHOTOGRAPHER JAMIE NELSON’S DEFENSE, TARGETING DISMISSAL OF AMY TAYLOR’S LAWSUIT IN ITS ENTIRETY

Federal judge stays discovery as Nelson’s newly retained, award-winning counsel appears at today’s hearing

LOS ANGELES, Calif. — On June 15, 2026, U.S. District Judge George H. Wu extended the stay of discovery as Jamie Nelson’s newly retained counsel announced his intention to seek dismissal of Amy Taylor’s First Amended Complaint in its entirety. In a March 18 tentative ruling, the Court indicated that Taylor’s Lanham Act claim would be dismissed and expressed doubt that amendment could cure the deficiencies identified.

Judge Wu directed the parties to submit further briefing before the Court renders a decision. The next hearing is currently scheduled for July 27, 2026.

In a significant new development in the legal battle, Nelson has raised the stakes by retaining prominent copyright attorney Stephen Doniger and the team at Doniger/Burroughs APC to lead her defense.

Doniger is widely recognized for his work protecting the rights of photographers, artists, and creators. His honors include Chambers Spotlight (2025–2026), Martindale-Hubbell Platinum Client Champion, Best of LA Legal (2026), Super Lawyers (2020–2026), and the Vanguard Award (2024).

The case centers on photographs created by photographer Jamie Nelson during a May 2025 editorial photoshoot featuring Amy Taylor, lead singer of Amyl and the Sniffers, that was later published by Vogue Portugal in the editorial Champagne Problems.

The dispute has been closely followed by music, entertainment, and legal media since it was filed in December 2025, generating international coverage and public debate concerning photographers' rights and copyright ownership.

“For six months, I represented myself in federal court because I could not afford expensive legal counsel,” Nelson said. “I am deeply grateful to everyone who supported me and helped me find representation. I am honored to have Stephen Doniger and the team at Doniger/Burroughs serving as my counsel.”

THE BACKGROUND

In May 2025, Nelson independently conceived, organized, and financed a photoshoot featuring Taylor, investing approximately $20,000 and assembling a fifteen-person creative team. The resulting images were later published by Vogue Portugal.

Several months after publication, Nelson began offering select photographs from the series as fine art prints.

Taylor subsequently demanded that Nelson cease selling the photographs and permanently remove them from her website, portfolio, and social media platforms. When Nelson refused and asserted her rights as the copyright owner, litigation followed.

According to Nelson, there was no written contract, copyright assignment, or verbal agreement restricting her future rights in the photographs.

THE LEGAL ISSUE

Nelson maintains that the dispute ultimately turns on a straightforward copyright principle: the creator of a photograph owns the copyright unless those rights are transferred by agreement.

According to Nelson, Taylor appeared as the subject of the photographs but is now seeking to control their future display, publication, licensing, exhibition, and sale despite not owning the copyrights in the images.

Nelson argues that appearing in a photograph—even as a public figure or celebrity—does not grant a subject ownership of the image or the right to control the photographer's future use of the work.

Photographers, like musicians, painters, filmmakers, and writers, spend years developing their craft and building careers around the work they create. Nelson argues that copyright law exists to ensure that creators—not subjects—retain control over their creative works and are not required to seek permission from public figures, celebrities, or other subjects before making future use of their own copyrighted material.

BROADER IMPLICATIONS FOR ARTISTS

Nelson believes the case raises issues that extend beyond a dispute between a photographer and a celebrity subject.

If subjects could later claim control over photographs simply because they appear in them, photographers’ ability to create, license, exhibit, archive, and profit from their work could be significantly undermined.

“Photographers are artists,” Nelson said. “Like musicians, painters, filmmakers, and writers, we depend on copyright protections to make a living from the work we create.”

Nelson argues that copyright law exists so creators—not subjects—control the future use of the work they create.

“This case has never been just about me,” Nelson said. “I believe it raises important questions about whether photographers and other artists can continue to control, display, license, and profit from the work they create. I intend to continue standing up for the rights of creators and the copyright protections that artists depend upon.”

According to Nelson, the outcome of this case could have implications for photographers, journalists, filmmakers, and other creators whose livelihoods depend upon established copyright protections.

NEXT STEPS

The parties will submit additional briefing in response to the issues raised by the Court. The next hearing is scheduled for July 27, 2026.

Nelson maintains that the case raises important questions concerning photographers’ rights, copyright ownership, and the ability of artists to control, display, license, publish, and profit from their intellectual property.