The use of photographs, images of artists and famous faces in marketing campaigns may sometimes seem harmless. Yet a single image on a product’s packaging can lead to claims running into millions for copyright infringement, trademark infringement and unauthorised use of image rights. This is evident from the recent lawsuit brought by the famous singer Dua Lipa against Samsung.
Why is Dua Lipa suing Samsung?
According to the complaint filed, Samsung used a photograph of Dua Lipa without permission on the packaging of televisions sold in the United States. The image is said to have been prominently displayed on the cardboard boxes of Samsung televisions.
Dua Lipa claims that she only discovered that her image had been used after the fact. According to the complaint, after she had demanded that Samsung cease using it, the company responded in a “dismissive and callous” manner.
The indictment 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 $15 million.
Which rights are relevant here?
The case involves several intellectual property rights at once. This makes these proceedings relevant to parties working in commercial photography, artists, influencers or branded content.
1. Copyright on the photograph
According to the complaint, Dua Lipa herself is the copyright holder of the photograph in question. The image is reportedly registered with the US Copyright Office under registration number VA 2-479-685.
In principle, the copyright in a photograph belongs to its creator – usually the photographer. In this case, however, Dua Lipa claims that she herself is the copyright holder of the backstage photograph in question, which puts her in a considerably stronger position under copyright law than if a third party were the photographer.
In principle, the owner of a photograph has the exclusive right to publish and reproduce that image. This almost always includes the use of a photograph on product packaging.
The fact that an image is available online does not mean that it may be used for commercial purposes.
2. Right to one’s own image and commercial use
In addition to copyright, Dua Lipa is invoking her so-called “right of publicity”. This right protects against the commercial exploitation of a person’s name, likeness and identity.
In the Netherlands, we do not have a system identical to that in California, but we do have the right of publicity under the Copyright Act and additional protection under tort law. Particularly in the case of well-known individuals, the commercial use of their likeness without consent can very easily be unlawful.
This is particularly the case when:
- it gives the impression that someone is recommending a product;
- a brand capitalises on the popularity of an artist or influencer;
- reputation or commercial value is used without a licence.
According to the complaint, Samsung has benefited precisely from this.
3. Trade mark law: a less obvious basis
The complaint also includes a claim for trademark infringement. Although the name “Dua Lipa” is registered as a trade mark, Samsung’s use in this case relates solely to her image and not her name. This raises the question of whether there are sufficient grounds for a successful trade mark claim – the trade mark law basis appears weaker in this case than the copyright and publicity rights.
The impression created by an endorsement can be legally risky
A key aspect of the case is the alleged suggestion that Dua Lipa endorses Samsung TVs.
The proceedings cite social media posts from consumers who viewed the packaging as a form of 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 response was:
“I’d get that TV just because Dua is on it.”
According to Dua Lipa, these reactions prove that consumers genuinely believed there was a collaboration or endorsement involved.
This may also be legally relevant under Dutch and European trademark law if the public believes that an artist, influencer or public figure is associated with a product when this is not the case.
Why this case is relevant
Many organisations use visual content in packaging, social media campaigns, advertisements, online shops, AI-generated content, influencer marketing and event promotion.
It is sometimes too readily assumed that a photograph is ‘free to use’, particularly when it has been obtained via the internet, a photographer or a third party.
This case demonstrates that several rights can be infringed simultaneously: copyright, the right of publicity, trade mark law, advertising law and personality rights.
The financial consequences can be significant. Not only because of claims for damages, but also because of reputational damage and the mandatory suspension of campaigns.
What lessons can we learn from this?
Always check the rights to any visual material
Do not use photos of artists, influencers or public figures in commercial communications without clear permission or a licence.
Please check the following, amongst other things:
- who holds the copyright;
- or commercial use is permitted;
- or whether image rights have been settled;
- whether endorsement is explicitly permitted.
Pay particular attention to packaging and advertisements
The risk increases when an image is directly linked to the sale of products. Packaging and advertisements are subject to stricter legal scrutiny than, for example, editorial content.
Put agreements in writing
Use clear licence agreements that state:
- the purposes for which the image may be used;
- on which channels;
- during which period;
- in which countries;
- for which products.
Without clear agreements, disputes about scope and consent can quickly arise.
Music rights and branding are becoming increasingly intertwined
For artists, their name, face and image often hold significant commercial value. Major artists enter into exclusive deals with luxury and lifestyle brands, making unauthorised use a particularly sensitive issue.
The complaint emphasises that Dua Lipa has built up a “premium brand” and is “highly selective” when it comes to commercial partnerships.
It is precisely for this reason that, in her view, unauthorised use could lead to a dilution of her brand value and a loss of control over her commercial positioning.
