How a Vogue Portugal shoot with no signed contract turned into a federal lawsuit — and why photographer Jamie Nelson is questioning the management, the press spin, and the contradictions behind the case
If you know, you know. Cross Simone Ubaldi, and in my experience, you’ll meet a very different side of her. Then again, perhaps I’m biased—I’ve spent the past nine months in federal litigation with her.
Before the federal lawsuit.
Before the lawyers.
Before the cease-and-desist letters, press articles, restraining-order proceeding, copyright counterclaims and nearly a year of litigation.
There was Simone Ubaldi.
Simone Ubaldi is one of the managers behind Australian punk band Amyl and the Sniffers and, in my experience, has been one of the central voices behind this dispute from the beginning.
She was involved in bringing me into the band’s orbit. She contacted me about photographing Amyl and the Sniffers in 2024 but the rate was too low for the rights they requested. She later coordinated with me in connection with the May 2025 Vogue Portugal shoot with Amy Taylor. And when a disagreement arose months later over my fine-art use of the photographs I created, Simone became a principal intermediary between Amy’s camp, their lawyers and me.
The remarkable part?
There was no explicit signed contract before the Vogue shoot restricting my use of my own photographs.
ABC Australia has since reported exactly that: there was no explicit contract signed before the shoot. (ABC News)
Yet months later, I found myself being told that I had supposedly agreed to restrictions that I maintain I never agreed to.
Eventually, Amy Taylor sued me in federal court.
So I think the obvious question deserves to be asked:
How did we get from an unpaid editorial shoot that I spent approximately $20,000 of my own money producing, arranged through management with no signed contract restricting my copyright, to a federal lawsuit against me, the photographer?
And what role did management play in getting us there?
Ultimately, Amy Taylor and her management are seeking to control what I can do with photographs that I created and copyrighted—based on restrictions they claim existed, but that I maintain I never agreed to.
And as I later discovered, this isn’t the first time Simone Ubaldi has faced allegations involving control over another creator’s images.
Years before my dispute, Mark “Chopper” Read’s widow, Margaret Read, publicly accused Ubaldi and her business partner Andrew Parisi of withholding photographs and footage created during the final period of her husband’s life—material Margaret said belonged with Mark’s family and estate.
Those allegations were never something I knew about when Simone arranged my relationship with Amy Taylor.
But after finding myself in my own fight over who gets to control images created by an artist, the history was impossible for me to ignore.
WHO IS SIMONE UBALDI?
Simone Ubaldi is a journalist-turned-artist-manager who co-manages Amyl and the Sniffers with Andrew Parisi through Sundowner Artists.
Ubaldi has publicly said she spent roughly two decades working as a music and arts journalist before moving into artist management. She has also openly acknowledged that she had never managed a band before Amyl and the Sniffers. She said she became involved after Parisi brought her in because the administrative side of managing the band had become hectic. (One of One)
The fact that Amyl was Ubaldi’s first band-management job is relevant to me for another reason.
Because at the heart of my lawsuit is what I believe should have been a very basic management issue:
If Amy Taylor required unusual limitations on what a photographer could ever do with photographs the photographer created and copyrighted, why weren’t those restrictions negotiated and put into a clear written contract before the shoot?
Instead, I believe management is now trying to turn its own alleged understanding into an agreement I supposedly made.
Those are two very different things.
SIMONE UBALDI FIRST BROUGHT ME INTO THE BAND’S WORLD
My relationship with Amyl and the Sniffers did not begin with the Vogue Portugal shoot.
It began with Simone.
Court filings and press reports state that in July 2024, Simone contacted me about photographing Amyl and the Sniffers a commerical project- their album Cartoon Darkness. (Rolling Stone Australia)
That shoot ultimately didn’t happen due to rate and contract disagreements.
Months later, Amy Taylor and I ended up collaborating on an editorial I conceived for Vogue Portugal.
The resulting shoot took place at my Los Angeles home on May 4, 2025.
I produced it.
I financed it.
I assembled the creative team.
I photographed it.
And I own the copyright in my photographs.
The editorial became “Champagne Problems” and was published by Vogue Portugal.
There was no signed contract transferring my copyright to Amy, the band or management, and there was no explicit signed agreement saying my photographs could exist only inside the pages of Vogue.
That distinction matters enormously.
Amy’s lawsuit now alleges that there was nevertheless an agreement limiting my use of the photographs.
I dispute that.
DID A MANAGEMENT ERROR BECOME A FEDERAL LAWSUIT?
I can’t know what conversations took place privately between Amy, Simone and their lawyers before this lawsuit was filed.
I don’t claim to know who personally made the final decision to sue me.
But after living through this dispute for nearly a year, I think I’m entitled to ask a question:
Was this lawsuit pushed forward, at least in part, because management failed to secure a written agreement before the shoot and later needed to treat that failure as something I had done wrong?
Because from where I stand, the chronology is extraordinary.
Management helps coordinate a shoot.
No explicit signed contract containing the restriction they now say was fundamental is executed.
The photographs are successfully published.
Months later, I propose a fine-art collection.
Suddenly I am told that I supposedly agreed that I couldn’t do that.
I say I never entered that agreement.
And eventually I’m sued in federal court.
That sequence deserves scrutiny.
THEN THE EMAILS TURNED UGLY
This didn’t stay a normal disagreement between creative professionals.
After the dispute escalated and legal demands began flying, I received communications from Simone that I considered abusive.
In emails I received, Simone called me a “cunt.”
In another communication, she told me:
“You’re barking up the wrong tree dog.”
Amy Taylor herself called me a “fucking loser.”
Those aren’t descriptions somebody gave me of what happened.
Those are communications I received.
People can disagree over contracts.
People can disagree over copyright.
People can hire lawyers.
But I do not believe calling the photographer a “cunt,” a “dog” or a “fucking loser” has anything to do with resolving a legitimate disagreement over image rights.
To me, that is bullying.
WHY I WENT TO COURT FOR PROTECTION
By late 2025 and early 2026, I believed the situation had gone far beyond a normal creative-business dispute.
I was receiving hostile communications, hate mail, and threats from multiple directions. One email threatened a “public lynching” if I ever came to Australia. I reported threatening material to Australian authorities and cyberbullying authorities which remain under investigation.
To be very clear: I do not claim that Simone Ubaldi or Amy Taylor authored anonymous threats that have not yet been traced.
That uncertainty was precisely part of the problem.
Some hostile communications came directly from identifiable people connected to the dispute. Others were anonymous or could not be definitively attributed to any one person. From my perspective, the volume and escalation of the communications created an increasingly intimidating environment around the dispute.
I eventually petitioned the Los Angeles court for a civil harassment restraining order against Amy Taylor. The Court did not grant that order, but I have never regretted filing it.
I sought the Court’s protection because I believed what began as a disagreement over photographs had spiraled into something much larger. While I could not attribute every message or threat to Amy Taylor—or determine who was responsible for anonymous communications—I believed the broader pressure surrounding the dispute involved Taylor, Ubaldi, and members of the professional team around them.
As one individual facing a public figure and an established management, publicity, and legal apparatus, I felt I had exhausted my ability to stop what I experienced as harassment and bullying on my own. By that point, I believed the situation was threatening both my career and my mental well-being.
OTHER CREATIVES STARTED CONTACTING ME
Something else happened after I began speaking publicly.
Other creatives began contacting me.
I have now received numerous private messages from people describing their own alleged experiences with the band, management or people in their orbit.
Some have told me they believe they were underpaid.
Others have described feeling threatened, bullied or pressured over their creative rights.
I am deliberately not publishing their identities or presenting their individual accounts as independently proven facts.
Those are their stories to tell.
But the sheer fact that people felt compelled to contact me privately mattered to me.
It made me start thinking about something much bigger than my photographs:
What happens when an individual creative ends up in a dispute with a famous artist, their management, lawyers, PR apparatus and fan base?
Most creatives don’t have unlimited money.
They don’t have lawyers on retainer.
They don’t have a management company.
They don’t have a press machine.
And they may decide that signing away a right, deleting work or simply disappearing is easier than fighting.
That culture needs to be discussed.
THEN I LEARNED ABOUT MARK “CHOPPER” READ
While researching Simone’s professional history, I discovered another image-rights controversy that immediately caught my attention.
Before managing Amyl and the Sniffers, Simone had worked with notorious Australian criminal-turned-author Mark “Chopper” Read.
Her partner Andrew Parisi managed Read, and Simone has publicly said she ghostwrote Read’s final book. (One of One)
But in 2018, Chopper Read’s widow, Margaret Read, publicly made serious allegations involving Parisi and Ubaldi and visual material created during the final year of her husband’s life.
Margaret said Mark had been working on a final personal project containing interviews, family footage and photographs intended as something for her and their son Roy to remember him by.
According to Margaret’s account, Parisi assisted with filming and photography along with Simone Ubaldi.
Margaret then alleged that after Mark’s death, the footage and photographs were not returned to her family.
She wrote that they had “taken this footage” and maintained that Mark had never given the material to his agent. (Independent Australia)
That is a serious allegation.
And it needs to be described accurately:
It is Margaret Read’s allegation. I am not claiming that a court found Simone Ubaldi or Andrew Parisi guilty of stealing Mark Read’s property.
But as a photographer currently fighting a dispute involving creative ownership and image rights involving Simone Ubaldi, I find the history impossible to ignore.
The parallels understandably caught my attention.
THEN CAME THE PRESS SPIN
The public got a glimpse of another side of this dynamic in April 2026.
After an early federal-court hearing, Amy’s side began promoting the proceeding publicly as a “near-complete victory.”
But Blunt Magazine reporter Joel King actually went back and examined the court transcript.
According to Blunt, Simone contacted the publication directly via text and told it that its coverage was “just plain wrong.” Joel King boldly inserted the text receipts into his article.
Simone Ubaldi asserted that a final judgment had been issued in their favor on my anti-SLAPP motion and my motion for judgment.
Blunt asked her to provide the court order or docket reference proving that statement.
According to the publication, it did not receive proof from Ms. Ubaldi.
It then reviewed the March 30 court transcript and concluded that the transcript did not support the sweeping victory narrative being presented publicly by Ubaldi and Taylor’s counsel. (Blunt Magazine)
That episode was incredibly significant to me.
Because suddenly a dynamic I believed I had been dealing with privately was playing out in front of an independent journalist:
Make a definitive assertion.
Tell the reporter he’s wrong.
Then, when he asks for the document proving the assertion, she didn’t provide it.
And the story becomes even stranger when you consider where the case stands now.
I QUESTION THE LOGIC OF THIS LAWSUIT AS A WHOLE
After months of litigation, the contradictions have become difficult for me to count.
CONTRADICTION #1: THE “EGALITARIAN” PUNK IMAGE VS. AN IMAGE “WORTH MILLIONS”
One explanation reported for Amy’s objection to my fine-art prints was their price.
ABC reported that one concern was that these prices supposedly conflicted with Amyl and the Sniffers’ inclusive and egalitarian principles. (ABC News)
Yet in federal court, Amy’s own lawyer emphasized her commercial relationship with luxury fashion.
According to the March 30 hearing transcript, her attorney argued that she had worked as an ambassador or celebrity for top fashion houses including Louis Vuitton and Gucci, received substantial compensation, and characterized the value of her image as being “in the millions of dollars.”
I have no problem with Amy modeling for luxury brands.
Good for her.
I work in fashion.
But I am allowed to question the apparent contradiction.
On one hand, the price of a photographer’s limited-edition artwork is supposedly inconsistent with an egalitarian punk ethos.
On the other hand, the litigation emphasizes Amy’s multimillion-dollar commercial image and luxury-brand value.
Which argument are we supposed to believe?
CONTRADICTION #2: A LAWSUIT TO STOP THE IMAGES THAT MADE THE IMAGES MORE FAMOUS
Amy’s lawsuit seeks, among other things, to restrict my use of these photographs.
Yet what has happened since the lawsuit was filed?
The photographs have appeared in stories about the dispute.
They have been discussed by ABC, Blunt, The Guardian, NME, Rolling Stone Australia, Billboard, and others.
Court hearings have discussed them.
The parties have filed documents about them.
Search engines now connect Amy Taylor, Jamie Nelson and Champagne Problems constantly.
In other words:
A lawsuit ostensibly brought because Amy wanted greater control over the circulation and commercialization of these images has generated vastly more attention for the photographs.
That isn’t an accusation.
It’s simply an observation about the consequences of choosing high-profile federal litigation.
CONTRADICTION #3: SUING ME IN CALIFORNIA — THEN ARGUING THE BAND SHOULDN’T HAVE TO DEFEND ITSELF HERE
Amy Taylor chose California federal court when she sued me in December 2025. Her original lawsuit in fact stated she was a “resident of California.”
After I brought copyright counterclaims involving Amyl and the Sniffers, however, the band company challenged U.S. jurisdiction. Her lawyer claimed in court that he had “made a mistake.” Amy Taylor then amended her lawsuit to call herself a “resident of Australia.”
As part of that argument, the band characterized its American social-media audience as a “very small percentage.”
That percentage?
Sixteen percent.
Based on the numbers put before the Court, Judge George H. Wu calculated that as follows and described that number as “hardly a diminutive sum.” (Blunt Magazine)
The Court ultimately rejected the band’s jurisdiction challenge and kept Amyl and the Sniffers in the U.S. case.
And this is where things become almost surreal.
THE BAND CLAIMS LIMITED U.S. CONNECTIONS WHILE ACTIVELY DOING BUSINESS IN AMERICA
While challenging jurisdiction, Amyl and the Sniffers have continued doing exactly what successful international bands do:
Conduct substantial business in the United States.
Their new concert film, Truth or Consequence, was filmed at the famous El Coyote in Los Angeles on April 28, 2025. Their own promotional materials describe the production as being filmed in Los Angeles. (Nasty Little Man)
The film then screened at the Alamo Drafthouse in Downtown Los Angeles on August 27, 2026. (showtimes.com)
And less than two weeks from now, the band is scheduled to return for yet another run of U.S. dates beginning October 1, with shows in Dallas, Austin, Atlanta, Raleigh, Nashville and New Orleans, among others. (Nasty Little Man)
Touring America.
Selling tickets in America.
Promoting to American fans.
Working with American businesses.
Filming a commercial concert project in Los Angeles.
Screening that project in Los Angeles.
Then returning for another U.S. tour.
Whatever legal arguments their attorneys were entitled to make about jurisdiction, their actual business strategy hardly looks like one built around avoiding American commerce.
And perhaps those U.S. contacts help explain why the Court rejected the jurisdiction challenge.
AND NOW THE FEDERAL CLAIM AGAINST ME IS GONE
This litigation began with Amy Taylor bringing a federal Lanham Act claim against me, along with California state-law claims.
On September 14, 2026, Judge George H. Wu adopted rulings dismissing Taylor’s federal Lanham Act claim with prejudice.
Her California right-of-publicity and implied-contract claims remain.
My copyright dispute with Taylor and Amyl and the Sniffers also continues, and the Court denied the band’s jurisdiction challenge.
So after months of headlines, accusations and litigation, I find myself coming back to the same question:
How did any of this need to happen?
WAS THIS REALLY ABOUT PHOTOGRAPHS — OR ABOUT MANAGEMENT TRYING TO RETROACTIVELY TRYING TO GAIN CONTROL AFTER A MAJOR MANAGERIAL OMISSION?
I do not pretend to know what Amy was told privately.
I don’t know what advice Simone gave Amy before the shoot.
I don’t know what conversations happened once management realized there wasn’t a signed contract containing the restrictions they now claim mattered so much.
And I don’t know whether Amy herself pushed for federal litigation or whether people around her convinced her that litigation was the solution.
But based on everything I have experienced, I think it is fair for me to wonder:
Did a management mistake become a lawsuit?
If management wanted a photographer to surrender or severely restrict normal rights in photographs she created, the time to negotiate that was before the photographer spent her own money producing the shoot.
Put it in writing.
Negotiate it.
Have both sides sign it.
Then everybody knows the deal.
What I reject is the idea that someone can wait until after a successful shoot, after publication, after the photographer has created the work, and then announce that the photographer supposedly agreed to restrictions she says she never agreed to.
To me, that is precisely why written agreements exist.
THE BIGGER PROBLEM: MUSIC-INDUSTRY POWER VS. CREATIVE RIGHTS
This story is no longer just about Amy Taylor.
And it isn’t even just about Simone Ubaldi.
For me, it has become about what happens when independent creatives come up against institutions and people with more money, management, lawyers, PR and public influence.
Since speaking publicly, I have heard from other creatives who say they have felt pressured to surrender rights, accept less money, remain quiet or walk away because fighting simply wasn’t financially possible.
That is the culture I want exposed.
I spent 6 months fighting this case without a lawyer.
I didn’t have a press team.
I didn’t have band management.
I didn’t have a record label standing behind me.
But I did have my copyright.
I had the documents.
I had a pink suit, bravely going to federal court with my rights and my voice.
And I decided I wasn’t going to disappear.
What many people don’t see is that intimidation from public figures, management, lawyers, PR and online mobs often happens behind closed doors. Most artists don’t have the resources, legal support or platform to stand up.
Since speaking publicly, I have received messages from other creatives describing experiences in which they say they were underpaid, threatened or pressured over their rights.
I am speaking about what happened to me because the culture of bullying creatives needs to be brought into the light.
I will not be silenced.
Simone Ubaldi may have started this story as the manager arranging photography.
But once the shoot became a dispute, management became an important part of the story too.
And after everything that has happened—the emails, the lawsuit, the media spin, the earlier allegations involving Mark Read’s family, and the contradictions that have emerged in court—I believe the public deserves to understand how this lawsuit actually started.
Because sometimes the most important question isn’t simply:
Who filed the lawsuit?
It’s:
Who was behind the scenes when the dispute became one?
*This article reflects Jamie Nelson’s personal experiences, opinions and interpretation of the litigation and public record. Allegations attributed to third parties are identified as allegations and are not presented as adjudicated facts. Litigation remains ongoing as to claims not dismissed by the Court.
