Using photographs, artist images and famous faces in marketing campaigns can seem harmless. Yet a single image on packaging can generate claims worth millions for copyright infringement, trade mark infringement and unauthorised use of portrait rights. The recent lawsuit brought by singer Dua Lipa against Samsung illustrates the point.
Why is Dua Lipa suing Samsung?
According to the filed complaint, Samsung used a photograph of Dua Lipa without permission on television packaging sold in the United States. The image was allegedly prominently displayed on Samsung TV boxes.
Dua Lipa says she discovered the use only afterwards. According to the complaint, Samsung responded in a “dismissive and callous” manner after she demanded that it stop.
The complaint states, among other things:
“Ms. Lipa’s face was prominently used for a mass marketing campaign for a consumer product without her knowledge, without consideration, and as to which she had no say, control, or input whatsoever.”
The singer is seeking damages of at least US$15 million.
Which rights are involved?
The case engages several intellectual property rights simultaneously. This makes it relevant to parties working with commercial photography, artists, influencers or branded content.
1. Copyright in the photograph
The complaint states that Dua Lipa herself owns the rights in the photograph used. The image was reportedly registered with the US Copyright Office under registration number VA 2-479-685.
Copyright in a photograph generally belongs to its creator, usually the photographer. Here, however, Dua Lipa claims to own the rights in the backstage photograph herself, considerably strengthening her copyright position compared with a situation in which the photographer was a third party.
The copyright owner generally has the exclusive right to make the image public and reproduce it. Placing a photograph on product packaging will almost always fall within that scope.
An image’s availability online does not mean it may be used commercially.
2. Portrait rights and commercial exploitation
Alongside copyright, Dua Lipa relies on her “right of publicity”, which protects commercial exploitation of a person’s name, face and identity.
The Netherlands does not have an identical regime to California’s, but does recognise portrait rights under the Dutch Copyright Act and additional protection through tort law. Particularly for well-known individuals, commercial use of their portrait without permission may readily be unlawful.
This is particularly relevant where:
- the impression is created that someone endorses a product;
- a brand benefits from an artist’s or influencer’s popularity;
- reputation or commercial value is exploited without a licence.
According to the complaint, this is precisely what Samsung benefited from.
3. Trade mark law: a less obvious basis
The complaint also includes a trade mark infringement claim. Although “Dua Lipa” is registered as a mark, Samsung’s alleged use here concerns her image alone, rather than her name. This raises the question whether there is sufficient basis for a successful trade mark claim. In this case, that basis appears less strong than copyright and publicity rights.
An impression of endorsement can create legal risk
A significant part of the case concerns the alleged suggestion that Dua Lipa endorsed Samsung televisions.
The proceedings refer to social media posts from consumers who interpreted the packaging as an endorsement. One user wrote:
“I wasn’t even planning on buying a tv but I saw the box so I decided to get it.”
Another comment stated:
“I’d get that TV just because Dua is on it.”
Dua Lipa argues that these reactions demonstrate consumers actually believed there was a collaboration or endorsement.
This can also be legally relevant under Dutch and European trade mark law where the public believes an artist, influencer or famous person is associated with a product when that is not the case.
Why this case matters
Many organisations use images in packaging, social media campaigns, advertisements, online shops, AI content, influencer marketing and event promotion.
It is sometimes too readily assumed that a photograph is free to use, particularly where obtained online, from a photographer or through a third party.
This case illustrates that several rights can be infringed simultaneously: copyright, portrait rights, trade mark rights, advertising law and personality rights.
The financial consequences can be significant, involving not only damages claims but reputational harm and mandatory withdrawal of campaigns.
What lessons can be drawn?
Always check image rights
Do not simply use photographs of artists, influencers or famous individuals commercially without clear permission or a licence.
Check, among other things:
- who owns the copyright;
- whether commercial exploitation is permitted;
- whether portrait rights have been addressed;
- whether endorsement is expressly permitted.
Take extra care with packaging and advertising
Risk increases where an image is directly linked to product sales. Packaging and advertising receive stricter legal scrutiny than, for example, editorial content.
Record arrangements in writing
Use clear licensing agreements specifying:
- what the image may be used for;
- on which channels;
- for what period;
- in which countries;
- for which products.
Without clear arrangements, disputes about scope and permission quickly arise.
Music law and branding are increasingly connected
Artists’ names, faces and images often represent substantial commercial value. Major artists enter exclusive deals with luxury and lifestyle brands, making unauthorised use particularly sensitive.
The complaint emphasises that Dua Lipa has built a “premium brand” and is “highly selective” in commercial collaborations.
For precisely that reason, she argues that unauthorised use can dilute her brand’s value and cause loss of control over her commercial positioning.
