Champagne Problems: Copyright Ownership and the Right to Publicity

Written by Brennan Paterson, Lex Tecnica Law Clerk

The ongoing federal lawsuit Taylor v. Jamie Nelson Studios LLC, No. 2:25-cv-12069 (C.D. Cal.

Dec. 22, 2025) spotlights a concept that may surprise photographers and other artists: even when a photographer owns the copyright to their images, the way those images are marketed and sold can still result in legal challenges.

This case, brought by Australian punk singer Amy Taylor, centers on a series of photographs of Taylor shot by photographer Jamie Nelson for the exclusive purpose of publishing the photos in the July 2025 issue of Vogue Portugal. After the photos were subsequently published as planned, Nelson contacted Taylor seeking permission and endorsement to sell copies of the photos as “fine art prints” on Nelson’s website. However, when Taylor specifically denied this permission, Nelson began to sell the prints anyway, with the marketing implication that the sale was endorsed by Taylor.

Taylor’s subsequent suit alleges two principal violations: False Endorsement under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(A); and unauthorized commercial use of Taylor’s likeness under California’s Right to Publicity law, Cal. Civ. Code § 3344. Though the case is continuing and both parties have been ordered to engage in mediation, it speaks to real-world issues concerning freedom of expression, commercial exploitation of copyright, and the rights of individuals over their own images and identities.

The Website Language

The allegedly problematic marketing language comes directly from Nelson’s “Champagne

Problems” fine-art collection website. The site describes the for-sale prints of Taylor (available for purchase for $1,500.00 each) as “a visual interplay between two kindred spirits”. The site continues by comparing the photographer and Taylor’s visual styles, saying “the two women (are) often mistaken as each others doppelgangers”. The description “Nelson turns the lens on Taylor, who stands in stark contrast to Nelson’s glamorous Hollywood Regency décor. Together, they dissolve boundaries” appears to further illustrate that Taylor is on board with the reader/potential customer purchasing one of the prints.

Taylor’s complaint asserts that she never consented to the use of her likeness for fine-art prints, merchandise sales, or branding material of any kind. She alleges that the above marketing language intentionally conveys that she actively collaborated with Nelson on the art series and approved, or even embraced, its packaging and sale as “fine art”, which is contrary to her specific rejection of such partnership. This implication of endorsement is the crux of Taylor’s federal claim.

The Lanham Act Claim

False endorsement law under the Lanham Act focuses on whether a seller’s conduct is likely to cause consumers to believe that a person has endorsed, approved, sponsored, or is affiliated with the product being sold. 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(A). Courts typically examine the overall context of the marketing, including not only explicit statements but also imagery, style, tone, and perceived messaging. The Ninth Circuit’s decision in White v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., 971 F.2d 1395 (9th Cir. 1992), is particularly relevant. In White, an advertisement featured a robot dressed to evoke Vanna White’s television persona. The Court held that even without directly using White’s name or face, the advertisement could convey a false impression of endorsement because the imagery was clearly meant to trade on White’s identity in a commercial fashion. Though Samsung argued that their advertisement was a parody and thus protected artistic expression, the Court determined that the purpose of the advertisement was not to express an artistic concept, but rather to sell VCRs. Here, Taylor’s position draws upon that same logic. Nelson’s website repeatedly pairs Taylor and Nelson as “kindred spirits”, frames the sale of the prints as a deliberate creative partnership between the two women, and imbeds Taylor’s persona into Nelson’s narrative of her own artistic brand. Taylor argues that this marketing communicates that she not only participated in the creative process but also supports the commercial sale of the

prints as fine art, which she expressly denies.

A Lanham Act claim does not require proof of actual confusion, but only the likelihood of it.

While it is true that courts typically defer to First Amendment protection of expressive works,

that protection weakens when the marketing of the works moves beyond neutral description and begins to affirmatively suggest endorsement. The Rogers v. Grimaldi test, adopted in various forms across the Circuit Courts, shields expressive works unless the use is both (1) not

artistically relevant, and (2) explicitly misleading. Rogers v. Grimaldi, 875 F.2d 994 (2d Cir. 1989). Nelson may argue that her prints are expressive works fully protected by the First

Amendment. Taylor, conversely, may argue that it is not the prints themselves but the marketing language that crosses the line into explicitly misleading commercial speech. Given the website’s language, this claim is not implausible.

The California Right of Publicity Claim

Taylor also brings a claim under California’s statutory Right of Publicity law, Cal. Civ. Code §

3344. This law prohibits the knowing use of a person’s name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness for commercial purposes without that person’s consent. Under this law, copyright

ownership provides no defense to a right-of-publicity claim. Thus, even if Nelson holds the

copyright for the photographs, and even if she lawfully took the photographs during a legitimate commissioned shoot, California law still requires permission for commercial exploitation of a person’s identity, and particularly for advertising, merchandise, or product sales. Considering that Taylor purportedly specifically withheld that permission for purposes other than publishing in Vogue Portugal, this claim is doctrinally straightforward. That doctrine is consistently reinforced in similar cases: copyrights may protect the ownership of creative work, but California publicity rights protect the person depicted.

Taylor v. Nelson is an interesting example of how copyright ownership alone does not immunize a photographer from claims of false endorsement or unauthorized commercialization. When photographers market their copyrighted images for commercial sale in ways that suggest a relationship, partnership, or shared creative vision with the subject, the courts will likely give very close scrutiny to that marketing and all that it implies. If Taylor succeeds in her claims, the case may serve as a cautionary lesson for photographers and other artists: if you’re selling your work, the language you use to market it may be just as important as your rights to the work itself.

This article has been reviewed and approved for legal accuracy by Ashlyn Hauber, Esq. It is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.