When Amy Taylor sued photographer Jamie Nelson in California last December, she chose a US federal court to hear the dispute.
Now Taylor and Amyl and the Sniffers are asking that court to dismiss Nelson’s counterclaims on jurisdictional grounds, arguing that Australia is the more appropriate place for the dispute.
The issue is now heading toward an August 24 hearing that could significantly narrow the case, or reshape it altogether.
The Basic Version
- Taylor sued Nelson in California.
- Nelson later filed copyright counterclaims against Taylor and Amyl and the Sniffers.
- Taylor and the band now want those counterclaims dismissed.
- Part of their argument is that the claims belong in Australia, not California.
- Nelson is also asking the court to dismiss Taylor’s original lawsuit.
- All three dismissal motions are due to be heard on August 24.
Three Motions, One Hearing
The case has now been running for more than eight months through amended pleadings, counterclaims and failed settlement attempts.
In February, Nelson added Amyl and the Sniffers as a party to her copyright counterclaims. She alleges the band used her photographs without payment or permission.
After months of failed attempts to complete service in Australia, an investigative team served the band during its US tour on June 20. According to Nelson, Taylor accepted the documents as a contact for Amyl and the Sniffers.
On July 13, lawyers for Taylor and the band filed separate motions seeking dismissal of Nelson’s counterclaims.
- Taylor is seeking dismissal of Nelson’s counterclaims against her.
- Amyl and the Sniffers is challenging the California court’s jurisdiction over the band.
- Nelson is seeking dismissal of Taylor’s lawsuit in its entirety.
Why The Jurisdiction Argument Matters
The latest motions create an obvious contrast.
Taylor originally chose a California federal court when she filed the lawsuit. Nelson says Taylor initially described herself as living in Los Angeles, before later identifying herself in an amended complaint as an Australian resident.
Taylor and the band are now arguing that Nelson’s counterclaims should not proceed against them in California.
The band’s motion reportedly argues that defending the claims in Australia would be more convenient and less expensive, and that its US business contacts are not enough to keep the dispute in California.
That does not automatically make the argument inconsistent or unsuccessful. Jurisdiction can turn on different facts for different claims and different parties. But it gives the August hearing a simple question at its centre: can Taylor choose California for her claims while arguing that Nelson cannot use the same court for hers?
Nelson Says The Claims Belong Together
Nelson says it is fair and efficient for the California court to hear the entire dispute.
“Amy Taylor chose a California forum to sue me over the rights to my own copyrighted artwork. I believe it is both fair and efficient for the court to hear my copyright counterclaims concerning the band’s unpaid use of my art without my consent.”
Nelson maintains that she owns the copyright in the photographs and has the right to display and sell them. Taylor’s lawsuit disputes how those images were used commercially.
Nelson represented herself for approximately six months before retaining copyright lawyer Stephen Doniger.
What Happens Next
The August 24 hearing will place all three dismissal motions before the same judge.
The court could allow the case to continue largely as it stands, dismiss some claims while leaving others in place, or substantially narrow the dispute before either side reaches the merits. An earlier court transcript showed the judge warning that there was no telling who would ultimately win.
For now, neither side has won the underlying case.
The hearing is scheduled in the United States District Court for the Central District of California in Amy Louise Taylor v. Jamie Nelson Studios LLC et al.
MORE IN News
