June 16, 2026
Sanicki Lawyers
16 June 2026
Commercial, Trademarks & Copyright
On the 8th of May 2026, pop star Dua Lipa filed a lawsuit against electronic tech giant Samsung for using her image to sell their TVs. Dua Lipa is seeking $15 million USD in damages in the California Federal Court.
Ms. Lipa is bringing this action against Samsung on the basis that they have used her image on the packaging of the TVs without permission. She argues that Samsung have violated her right of publicity to her image, capitalising on and exploiting the pop stars “valuable image” to sell their TVs.
The image alleged to have been used is titled “Dua Lipa – Backstage at Austin City Limits, 2024”. The complaint states that Ms. Lipa holds the commercial publicity and trademark rights to this image, and that by utilising the image on the product packaging, Samsung has suggested a commercial association or endorsement by Ms Lipa.
According to the complaint filed, when Ms. Lipa became aware of this alleged infringement, her team demanded that Samsung cease all use of her image on their packaging. They allege Samsung have refused to comply with these demands to cease use, and Ms Lipa’s legal team characterised Samsung’s response “dismissive and callous”.
Ms. Lipa has provided the court with evidence that Samsung has contained a substantial commercial benefit from the unauthorised use and distribution of her public image. Her legal team state that the revenue the company has made on sales of the alleged infringing products is “inextricably tied” to the misleading message that Ms. Lipa endorsed or was otherwise affiliated with the products.
It is the false association between the product and the singer that caused potential consumers to purchase the product.
Source: Dua Lipa’s complaint
Samsung has since denied Ms. Lipa’s allegations and maintain that the necessary rights and permissions for the image were secured prior to usage.
Although this dispute is being litigated in the United States, the issues raised are highly relevant to Australian businesses, particularly those operating in:
The central issue extends beyond whether the photo was used. The more significant issue is whether consumers were led to believe there was an endorsement, sponsorship or commercial relationship between the celebrity and the product, when no such relationship existed.
Unlike many jurisdictions in the United States (where they have a law called the “right of publicity”), Australia does not have a specific law aimed at protecting or preventing unauthorised use of a person’s image or likeness. Instead, individuals in similar circumstances typically rely on a combination of legal protections, including:
“Passing off” protection is derived from the common law and can provide a valuable remedy where a person’s reputation or likeness has been exploited. Positively, it doesn’t require registration, however, it is more difficult to bring a claim under this cause of action. Unlike registered intellectual property rights, a claimant must establish that they have a sufficient reputation and/or public goodwill and must demonstrate that consumers are likely to be misled by the conduct. If the rights holder has registered a trademark, their rights are increasingly protected under the Trade Marks Act 1995.
The Copyright Act 1968 can also provide general legal protection for people who express original ideas and information in certain forms, operating as an automatic protection mechanism. Copyright can subsist in images, works of writing, music or moving images (videos). However, copyright protection generally belongs to the creator or owner of the work and does not automatically protect a person’s likeness or image.
The increasing use of artificial intelligence in advertising has amplified concerns surround image rights, likeness protection, and digital identity. Businesses can now generate highly realistic content that resembles celebrities, influencers, or other public figures without directly copying or using an existing photograph. As a result, the risk of creating misleading impressions of endorsement or affiliation has increased significantly.
Accordingly, the protection of one’s image, particularly celebrities, influencers and public figures, is increasingly important. Ms. Lipa’s lawsuit is a clear attempt to stand her ground and protect her image as the rise of deepfake culture poses a threat to key rights such as privacy and autonomy. Even if a business does not intend to imply endorsement, liability may still arise if the overall impression conveyed is misleading.
This dispute highlights several practical risk-management lessons.
Businesses should carefully assess how their advertisement is presented to consumers, and what the advertising, packaging, and promotional materials convey. Even where a photograph has been lawfully licensed, legal risks may still arise if consumers are likely to infer an endorsement or affiliation that does not exist.
It is also prudent for businesses to re-evaluate their AI marketing practices, including implementing review processes to identify and avoid likeness replication, celebrity resemblance and deep-fake style advertising.
This area is no longer limited to major celebrities. Australian influencers, public figures, athletes and creators often monetise image rights, personal branding, sponsorships and digital identity. Consequently, disputes concerning commercial association may become more prevalent, and it is important individuals are aware of their rights and how they can protect themselves.
Sanicki Lawyers consists of a highly experienced team of intellectual property lawyers in Melbourne dealing with content protection and enforcement or risk management.
Our firm often assists with cases which involve unlicenced use of photography, imagery, artworks or music used in promotional works without permission.
If you suspect someone is using your work or your image without your permission, contact us to discuss your rights and protections.
+61 3 9510 9888
hello@sanickilawyers.com.au
