Emily Ratajkowski faces a lawsuit for sharing a photo of herself—but the new court proceedings are not the first time the actress, model and author has shared photos of herself without the photographer’s permission. Photographer Edward Opinaldo is suing the American actress for sharing two of his photos on Instagram in 2019. Ratajkowski previously settled a case out of court after sharing an image by photographer Robert O’Neil. The actress has previously taken a stand on allowing “women to share their likeness as they choose.”

[Read: Dua Lipa Gets Sued for Posting Paparazzi Photo of Herself]

Opinaldo says that the actress shared two images that he copyrighted. Both images are of Ratajkowski herself wearing a pink pantsuit, shared on Instagram in 2019. The Instagram post was picked up by celebrity news publications, including Mail Online. In the complaint, the celebrity photographer says that sharing the images both interfered with his ability to earn income from them and helped Ratajkowski herself build income through her online reputation.

Ratajkowski is just the latest in a long list of celebrities that have been sued for sharing images of themselves on social media. But, after a similar lawsuit from photographer Robert O’Neil, Ratajkowski has argued that she should have control over her own likeness. In a Tweet after the 2019 lawsuit was filed, she said “The digital terrain should be a place where women can share their likeness as they choose, controlling the usage of their image and receiving whatever potential capital attached.”

Ratajkowski, however, made an even bigger statement when she turned an image of herself into an NFT. Richard Prince, a painter known for his appropriated images that occasionally land him in copyright trouble himself, included two paintings depicting Ratajkowski as part of imagined Instagram posts in a series of work. The painted Instagram post features the model wearing a bikini for a shoot for Sports Illustrated. The model took a photo of herself standing in front of the painting—and then sold it as an NFT, where she profits each time the digital art piece is sold. She called the NFT: Buying Myself Back: A Model for Redistribution. A second painting of her—this one including a nude picture of herself—had sold before the actress was able to buy the image.

[Read: 6 Copyright Infringement Cases Photographers Should Know About]

In an essay for The Cut, she wrote: “I’ve become accustomed to large men appearing suddenly between cars or jumping out from behind corners, with glassy black holes where their faces should be. I posted the photograph of me using the bouquet as a shield on my Instagram because I liked what it said about my relationship with the paparazzi, and now I was being sued for it. I’ve become more familiar with seeing myself through the paparazzi’s lenses than I am with looking at myself in the mirror. And I have learned that my image, my reflection, is not my own.”

Under U.S. Copyright Law, the photographer owns the rights to the image unless a previous agreement is in place, such as in a work for hire contract. During a previous interview with Rangefinder, Aaron Stark, an attorney specializing in copyright law, explained that while the photographer owns the copyright, the person in the image has what’s called a right to publicity. The right to publicity indicates that the person in the photo has the right to control how their likeness is used commercially. However, this law applies to commercial use of an image such as an advertisement and does not include fine-art (such as the Prince painting) or editorial (such as newspapers and magazines).

The Opinaldo complaint, filed on June 13 in New York, requests a jury trial.