Introduction
Dua Lipa, the Grammy-winning singer, has filed a lawsuit against Samsung in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, alleging that her image was used without permission on the outer packaging of Samsung televisions. According to reports, the packaging at issue was used for Samsung’s Crystal UHD series televisions, including the Samsung U8000FB. Lipa’s side claims that her photograph was used to promote the sale of the televisions, creating the impression among consumers that she endorsed, sponsored, or was otherwise associated with the products. The lawsuit raises issues including copyright infringement, trademark infringement, and violation of the right of publicity, and seeks at least $15 million in damages.
Not “Just a Box,” but an Advertising Medium at the Point of Purchase
What is important about this news is that the image in question was not used in a television commercial or magazine advertisement, but on the cardboard packaging of the product itself. At first glance, an outer box may appear to be mere packaging material. However, in electronics stores and product images on e-commerce sites, the package itself becomes a promotional medium seen by consumers.
In particular, the screen image shown on a television box plays the role of intuitively conveying what kind of viewing experience the consumer can expect from that television. If the face of a globally known artist appears there, it may function not as mere decoration, but as an advertising expression that enhances the appeal of the product.
For that reason, this case is not simply a matter of “accidentally using a photograph.” The core issue is the use of a celebrity’s image in a context close to the consumer’s purchasing decision.
The Essence of the Right of Publicity Is the Economic Value of a Face
The right of publicity asserted by Dua Lipa’s side is based on the idea that the customer-attracting power of a celebrity’s name, likeness, voice, and similar attributes must not be commercially used without the person’s permission. California law also provides a framework under which the unauthorized use of a person’s name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness for purposes of products, advertising, or sales promotion may become an issue.
A celebrity photograph is not merely an incidental depiction of a person. In the case of someone like Dua Lipa, who has influence in music, fashion, advertising, and social media, her face is itself a form of brand value. If consumers understand a product as being possibly connected to that person, that alone can generate trust in the product and public attention.
The fact that the packaging was reportedly referred to on social media as the “Dua Lipa TV Box” and drew reactions from fans may also support Lipa’s claims. According to reports, the complaint cites social media posts as evidence and indicates that the image may have influenced purchasing motivation.
A Structure Where Copyright, Trademark Rights, and the Right of Publicity Overlap
One interesting aspect of this case is that the issue is not confined to a single legal right.
First, there is a copyright issue concerning the photograph itself. According to reports, the image used was allegedly a backstage photograph from the 2024 Austin City Limits Music Festival, and Lipa claims to hold rights in it. If the photograph was reproduced on the outer packaging and placed into product distribution, permission to use the photographic work becomes an issue.
Next, there is the trademark and false endorsement issue of whether the name and image of Dua Lipa could cause consumer confusion regarding the source of the goods, sponsorship, endorsement, or affiliation. The U.S. Lanham Act includes a framework for addressing representations that are likely to cause confusion concerning source, affiliation, sponsorship, or approval.
In addition, the issue of the right of publicity overlaps because her likeness was allegedly used commercially. In other words, this lawsuit is not only about the “copying of a photograph,” but also about whether the company used the popularity and credibility of the person herself to sell products.
The Difficult Issue for Samsung Is Brand Management
Even if Samsung were to explain that the image came from a third-party content partner, that alone would not eliminate the risk. In fact, some reports state that Samsung denied intentional misuse and explained that the image originated from a third-party content partner.
However, the entity that places the finished product packaging on the market is the brand company. The outer box of a home appliance is not a mere internal document; it is product labeling distributed across the United States. Once a celebrity’s face is used there, it becomes necessary to confirm not only copyright clearance for the photograph, but also rights clearance concerning likeness, advertising use, and possible endorsement implications.
In this respect, the case also calls into question the content management systems of large companies. Even if there was a license for the image material, that license does not necessarily cover “commercial use on a television box,” “use of a celebrity’s likeness,” or “a manner of use that could be understood as endorsement by the person.”
Japanese Companies Should Not Regard This as Someone Else’s Problem
This case also carries important implications for Japanese companies that create product packaging, advertisements, social media posts, and e-commerce product images for overseas markets.
First, companies should not feel safe merely because they have permission to use a photograph. Even if permission has been obtained from the copyright owner of the photograph, issues concerning the portrait rights or right of publicity of the person appearing in the photograph may remain.
Second, even if a celebrity image is used as “background” or “image material,” consumers may associate it with endorsement, sponsorship, or affiliation. In particular, with product packaging, in-store POP displays, advertising banners, and e-commerce product thumbnails, the context of the image is directly connected to sales promotion.
Third, reactions on social media may become evidence in litigation. Even if the company believes that the use is “just design,” if consumers understand the product as being connected to the celebrity, those reactions may be used to support claims of rights infringement or damages.
The Face of a Favorite Celebrity Has Promotional Power
What this lawsuit symbolizes is the economic value of fandom. The phenomenon in which Dua Lipa’s fans react to the package and refer to it as the “Dua Lipa TV” clearly reflects modern consumer behavior.
Today, purchasing behavior is influenced not only by the performance of the product itself, but also by whose image the product is associated with. For companies, a celebrity’s face is a powerful marketing resource. Precisely because that value is high, the risk of unauthorized use is also significant.
Dua Lipa in particular is an influential figure not only in music, but also in fashion and global brand advertising. Using the likeness of such a person in a place close to product sales carries commercial meaning, regardless of whether the company intended it.
Conclusion
The lawsuit between Dua Lipa and Samsung is not merely a case of unauthorized use of a celebrity photograph. It is an example of brand risk in an era where product packaging has become an advertising medium, celebrity likenesses influence purchasing behavior, and social media reactions can reinforce the context of rights infringement.
What matters for companies is not only whether they can use an image as material, but also whether the image appears to borrow someone else’s value to sell a product. Copyright, trademark rights, and the right of publicity are separate rights, but in actual marketing practice, they can become issues at the same time in connection with a single image use.
This lawsuit once again shows that a celebrity’s face is not merely visual material, but has economic value comparable to an advertising contract. For product packaging, social media posts, e-commerce images, and other brand communications, companies need to confirm not only whether an image looks good, but first whether they have the right to use that image in that specific context.