The band is trying to get out of the U.S. case on jurisdictional grounds — despite heavy U.S. touring, and despite lead singer Amy Taylor suing Nelson in the U.S. in the first place.
CASE UPDATE: AMY TAYLOR, AMYL AND THE SNIFFERS v. JAMIE NELSON
Amy Taylor sued Jamie Nelson in an attempt to prohibit Nelson from making a living off her own copyrighted images. During the lawsuit, Nelson discovered that Taylor and her band, Amyl and the Sniffers, had actually been using her images without her consent and without payment. Nelson countersued for willful copyright infringement.
When Nelson sought to serve the band, they dodged contact, and Nelson ultimately had to hire a five-person investigative team to track them down and serve the band during one of their U.S. concerts. The band has since filed a motion attempting to escape Nelson’s counterclaims, arguing that the U.S. court lacks jurisdiction because the company is based in Australia — which could force Nelson to pursue a new action against the band in Australia.
But the evidence before the Court showed years of substantial U.S. activity by Amyl and the Sniffers, including American tours, ticket and merchandise sales, promotion directed at American fans, U.S. distribution, a U.S. option in the band’s online store, and representation by a Los Angeles-based booking agency.
The band argued that only a “very small percentage” of its social-media following was located in the United States. That percentage was 16%. Based on the Facebook and Instagram numbers submitted to the Court, Judge George H. Wu calculated that figure at 157,120 and wrote that it was “hardly a diminutive sum.”
Judge Wu’s tentative ruling also pointed to the band’s repeated touring and commercial activity across dozens of American cities. The Court tentatively found that those U.S. contacts were not merely random or isolated and rejected the argument that Australia was the more appropriate forum for Nelson’s counterclaims.
The irony is that Amy Taylor originally claimed to be a “resident of Los Angeles” when filing her lawsuit against Nelson in California federal court. Now, after Nelson has brought counterclaims, Taylor has filed a new amended lawsuit claiming that she and the band are residents of Australia — while the band argues that it should not be subject to jurisdiction in the United States.
Taylor chose California federal court in the first place. Judge Wu specifically noted that Taylor herself filed suit in California, that Taylor and the band company are represented by the same lawyers, and that band members or representatives may already be required to participate in discovery or trial in California if Taylor’s case proceeds.
Meanwhile, Judge Wu has released tentative rulings in Nelson’s favor finding her photographs to be expressive works protected by the First Amendment. Taylor’s main federal claim now risks getting completely tossed with prejudice.
In addressing Taylor’s latest attempt to save the federal claim, Judge Wu wrote that her additional allegations “did not move the needle” and tentatively concluded that Taylor “cannot survive the Rogers test.” If adopted, the ruling would dismiss Taylor’s federal Lanham Act claim without giving her another opportunity to amend it.
The Court also tentatively ruled that Nelson’s request for a judicial declaration establishing her rights to display, reproduce, distribute and sell the photographs would remain in the case. Nelson would be given an opportunity to amend her copyright infringement allegations to add more detail concerning alleged acts of infringement occurring within the United States.
An official ruling is expected on September 14, 2026, when the Court is scheduled to consider three dismissal motions.
Nelson says: “Photographers and artists should understand their rights and be able to defend those rights when necessary, despite power imbalances or lack of resources.”
Nelson has come out boldly on her social media to create awareness of the rights of creators who have been publicly bullied or threatened by litigation. She has also created a line of merchandise to educate the public on copyright, artists’ rights, intellectual property, and the First Amendment.
Nelson acted as her own attorney for six months, wearing a pink suit to court in true Elle Woods style and learning in real time how to use the legal system to fight for her rights.
This post reflects my understanding of the public record and is not legal advice.
Further Reading on Amy Taylor v. Jamie Nelson
Mission Impossible: Serving Amyl and the Sniffers
Why I Filed a Restraining Order Against Amy Taylor
'Rights Grab' Contracts in Live Music
Support Jamie Nelson’s fight for artists’ rights, First Amendment protections, and copyright law. Proceeds from merchandise sales help offset the legal costs of the ongoing litigation: Jamie Nelson Support T-Shirts
