Legal Battle Continues for Amyl & the Sniffers and L.A. Photographer, Both Citing Copyright Infringement; Vice, February 4, 2026

Lauren Boisvert, Vice; Legal Battle Continues for Amyl & the Sniffers and L.A. Photographer, Both Citing Copyright Infringement

"Legal issues have escalated for Australian punks Amyl & The Sniffers, and right after they announced upcoming tour dates. L.A. courts scheduled a hearing for February 13, 2026, regarding a copyright lawsuit and a restraining order filed last year. The issue allegedly began in June 2024, involving L.A.-based photographer Jamie Nelson.

In December 2025, Nelson filed a civil harassment restraining order petition against Amy Taylor, vocalist of Amyl & The Sniffers. Courts in L.A. did not grant the temporary restraining order. But they did schedule the hearing at this time.

Nelson is cited as the creator and copyright holder of a series of photographs taken of Taylor. The series, titled “Champagne Problems”, appeared in the July 2025 issue of Vogue Portugal.The problem arises for both parties in the subsequent use of these photos beyond their initial purpose.

Essentially, Nelson is accusing Taylor of violating copyright on her photos. Allegedly, a third party related to Taylor distributed them without permission. Prior to this, Taylor accused Nelson of exploiting her image for profit and self-advertisement. Allegedly, she sold fine art prints of the photos. Both parties have taken legal action."

Photographer Sues Gannett for $34 Million For Copyright Infringement; PetaPixel, December 15, 2022

PESALA BANDARA, PetaPixel ; Photographer Sues Gannett for $34 Million For Copyright Infringement

"Photographer Stephanie Campbell filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against major media company Gannett and more than 220 Gannett news outlets on Friday, reports Rochester Beacon.

In the lawsuit, Campbell alleges that hundreds of Gannett’s news titles published her photo of former NFL coach Katie Sowers without seeking the photographer’s permission...

[Kip Currier: The photographs, as described in the article, would be registered with the U.S. Copyright Office as copyrightable subject matter, not with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, which, as its eponymous name indicates, has jurisdiction over patents and trademarks.] Campbell registered the photographs of Sowers with the U.S. Patent and Trademarks office...

According to the Rochester Beacon, Campbell is seeking damages of up to $150,000 for each alleged infringement, a sum that, if each supposedly infringing publication used the Sowers photo only once, could see the photographer winning $34 million."

Copyright vs. Conscience: Lawyering Up Isn’t Always the Right Move; PetaPixel, August 21, 2018

Blair Bunting, PetaPixel; Copyright vs. Conscience: Lawyering Up Isn’t Always the Right Move

"You read stories about photographers going after copyright abuse all the time, and it’s nearly always justified. In this case, I hope you can agree with me that seeking monetary compensation through legal recourse was not the right move. Sometimes you have to step back and remember that this may be a business, but it’s a business that relies on people. Once in a while, you have to remember that everyone featured in a photograph is a human, and as such all deserve compassion.

Rest in peace, Old Man."

Is a picture really worth £1,000?, London Guardian, 11/27/08

Via London Guardian: Is a picture really worth £1,000?
A church and small businesses are just some of those accusing picture agencies of using heavy-handed tactics when pursuing payment:

"Dozens of small businesses and charities tell similar stories. On the online forums run by the Federation of Small Businesses, copyright infringement blows away every other subject. Many of those posting on the federation's forum have tried to do everything right; they aren't arguing about copyright. It's the enforcement tactics they find objectionable...

In the UK they'd struggle to make these amounts stick," he says. "UK law is only concerned with restoring the situation had licensing been correctly obtained. The courts don't like to be used as a means of extortion."

Drake says: "I understand the difficulty companies like Getty have and photographers have - they have a product that needs to be protected. But where is the Getty publicity campaign? Why aren't they issuing press releases and education to remind people that these images are not to be used?"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/nov/27/internet-photography

Q & A: Making Use of Public Domain, New York Times, 11/19/08

Via New York Times: Q & A: Making Use of Public Domain:

"Q. What does it mean when a Web site says a picture or document is in the public domain? Does that mean I can use it for my own purposes?"...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/20/technology/personaltech/20askk-001.html?scp=2&sq=copyright&st=cse