March 18 Tentative Ruling Signals the Court Will Grant Nelson’s Rule 12(c) Motion and Dismiss the Federal Claim, While Indicating It May Decline Jurisdiction Over Amy Taylor's Remaining State Claims; Nelson's Anti-SLAPP Motion Also Pending
Case Background Summary
The dispute between photographer Jamie Nelson and musician Amy Taylor centers on Plaintiff Amy Taylor's attempt to control and limit the photographer Jamie Nelson's lawful copyright ownership and use of her own work.
Nelson photographed Taylor during a directed editorial shoot that was later published in Vogue Portugal. As the photographer and copyright holder, Nelson retained ownership of the images and later offered fine-art prints for sale—standard practice in the photography industry.
The conflict arose when Amy Taylor objected to the sale of those prints. The dispute escalated, and on December 9, 2025, Jamie Nelson filed a Civil Harassment Restraining Order against Taylor. The Court ultimately found that the claims did not meet the required legal standard. Nonetheless, Nelson viewed the filing as an important step in addressing what she describes as intimidation and bullying tactics, and bringing the matter before the Court provided meaningful relief from further alleged defamatory and harassing conduct.
Approximately two weeks later, Amy Taylor filed a federal lawsuit asserting claims under the Lanham Act and right of publicity. At its core, Taylor’s position attempts to restrict how a photographer can use and monetize their own copyrighted work after publication.
Nelson has responded by defending her rights as the creator, arguing that the images are protected expressive works and that photographers must be able to control, license, and sell their work without interference from subjects after the fact.
The case has since evolved into a broader legal and cultural debate about artistic ownership—specifically, whether subjects can retroactively limit a photographer’s rights, even when the images were created in a professional editorial context.
*Chart adapted from Google AI
Court’s Tentative Ruling Signals Dismissal of Federal Claim
In a 14-page tentative ruling issued on March 18, 2026, the Court indicated it would rule in Jamie Nelson’s favor on her Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings, signaling that the federal claim brought against Jamie Nelson would be dismissed.
Read the full March 18, 2026 tentative ruling in Amy Taylor v. Jamie Nelson →
The Court found that Plaintiff Amy Taylor’s Lanham Act claim “cannot survive” under the Ninth Circuit’s Rogers test and indicated it would be dismissed with prejudice. The ruling further suggested that the remaining state law claims may also face dismissal.
The tentative ruling represents an early—but significant—win for Nelson and, more broadly, for the protection of artists’ rights in expressive works.
At the March 30 hearing, the Court granted Plaintiff Amy Taylor leave to amend her complaint, while expressing clear skepticism that its deficiencies could be cured.
Read the official March 30, 2026 court minutes in Amy Taylor v. Jamie Nelson federal case →
“I look forward to a final ruling on my dispositive motions,” Nelson said.
Ongoing Claims and Next Steps
Nelson confirmed that her copyright counterclaims remain active and will continue to move forward against Amy Taylor, Amyl and the Sniffers, John Angus Stewart, and PHC Films.
“This case highlights the realities independent artists face when navigating disputes against well-funded and aggressive legal pressure,” Nelson added. “I will continue to assert my rights as an artist as this matter proceeds.”
The Court has set a mediation deadline of April 23, 2026, with a post-mediation conference scheduled for April 27, 2026.
To date, the only final ruling came on March 30, when the Court denied Plaintiff Amy Taylor's motion for default judgment against Jamie Nelson Studios LLC.
Jamie Nelson is representing herself pro se in this matter and remains open to connecting with attorneys interested in pro bono or contingency representation as she continues to advance her claims.
Additional Context
Below are excerpts from the Court’s tentative ruling dated March 18, 2026. As of April 2, 2026, no final ruling has been issued on Nelson’s anti-SLAPP motion or Rule 12(c) motion.
Below are the Court’s minutes reflecting that Plaintiff Amy Taylor’s motion for default against Jamie Nelson Studios LLC was DENIED.
Cover photo: Blunt Magazine, photographed by Jamie Nelson (Joel King feature) Original article: https://bluntmag.com.au/news/amy-taylor-photo-dispute-jamie-nelson/
