Beyond Copyright: What Dua Lipa v Samsung Tells Us About Image Rights

A Right of Publicity

One reason the claim has attracted attention is that it is not simply a copyright dispute.

Dua Lipa's claim combines several overlapping rights, including copyright infringement, trade mark infringement, false endorsement and violation of her right of publicity. In the United States, the right of publicity allows individuals to control the commercial exploitation of their identity, including their name, image, likeness and persona.

In many US states, a celebrity can object to the unauthorised commercial use of their image even where consumers are not necessarily misled into believing that they endorsed the product. The focus is on protecting the commercial value of a person's identity.

Could This Happen in the UK?

In comparison with US law, there is no standalone "image right" in England and Wales. A celebrity cannot simply point to the use of their photograph and claim infringement of a general right in their appearance.

Instead, protection is pieced together through a combination of copyright, trade marks, passing off, privacy and data protection laws. The closest English equivalent to a US publicity rights claim is often passing off. To establish passing off, a claimant must show goodwill, a misrepresentation by the defendant and resulting damage.

In celebrity endorsement disputes, the crucial question is often whether the defendant's conduct falsely suggests that the celebrity has authorised, endorsed or is commercially connected with the infringing product(s) in question.

Despite these challenges, a number of high profile celebrities have successfully secured trade mark protection for elements of their likeness, namely features that make them instantly recognisable to the public. Notable examples include Sir Mo Farah, who registered the silhouette of his famous "Mobot" pose as a trade mark, obtaining protection for its use on merchandise such as clothing and games. Earlier this year, darts star Luke Littler attracted media attention when he applied to the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) to register an image of his face as a trade mark, aiming to prevent unauthorised commercial reproduction of his likeness. Similarly, footballer Cole Palmer registered both his facial likeness and signature in 2025, while his distinctive "shivering" goal celebration was also protected as a UK motion mark.

However, trade mark protection is not a complete solution. Any infringement claim requires a comparison between the registered mark and the allegedly infringing sign, as well as an assessment of the respective goods or services on which they are used. The rights holder must establish either actual confusion, a likelihood of confusion, or, where the trade mark enjoys a reputation, that the third party has taken unfair advantage of, or caused detriment to, that reputation without due cause. Such claims can be legally and evidentially complex, and there is no guarantee of a successful outcome.

Rihanna v Topshop: the UK's Closest Comparison

The leading authority on passing off in the context of celebrity endorsement and image rights is Fenty & Ors v Arcadia Group Brands Ltd (t/a Topshop) & Anor, otherwise known as the “Rihanna v Topshop” case.

In 2012, Topshop sold a T-shirt bearing a photograph of Rihanna. Topshop had obtained a licence from the photographer who owned the copyright in the image, however it did not have Rihanna's permission and she argued that the use of her image in relation to fashion clothing was not licensed.

The High Court held that Topshop's conduct amounted to passing off because a substantial number of consumers would believe that the T-shirt had been authorised by Rihanna. The decision was then upheld on appeal. The case is also well known for Justice Birss’ observation that "there is today in England no such thing as a free standing general right by a famous person ... to control the reproduction of their image."

Rihanna successfully won this case not because she owned her image, but because Topshop's conduct falsely suggested endorsement and damaged the goodwill associated with her brand.

There are noticeable parallels with Dua Lipa's claim as both cases concern the commercial use of a celebrity's image and the possibility that consumers may assume the celebrity is connected with or endorses the product. The key difference is that Rihanna relied on passing off in the UK, whereas Dua Lipa is able to also rely on the much broader US right of publicity.

What About Copyright?

Copyright protects the creative work itself and not the celebrity depicted in it.

If Samsung has reproduced a photograph of Dua Lipa without her permission, the key question is who owns the copyright in that photograph. In most cases, copyright will belong to the photographer unless it has been assigned or exclusively licensed elsewhere. That means a celebrity does not automatically own the copyright in photographs of themselves.

This highlights an important distinction in that:

• Copyright protects the photograph.
• Passing off protects the goodwill and reputation of the individual in the photograph.
• The US right of publicity protects the commercial value of an individual's identity.

Although UK and US copyright laws differ in some respects, the outcome in a commercial advertising dispute is likely to be broadly similar. Both jurisdictions prohibit unauthorised use of copyrighted material and so the larger divergence lies primarily in the additional protection afforded by publicity rights in the United States.

Could Data Protection Help in the UK?

In the UK, a photograph of an identifiable individual is considered personal data. If a person's image is processed for commercial purposes without a lawful basis, claims under the UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018 may arise.

However, data protection law protects privacy and personal data interests rather than the commercial value of celebrity identity. It is therefore not a direct substitute for publicity rights.

Is the Law in the UK About to Change?

In March 2026, the House of Lords Communications and Digital Committee published its report AI, copyright and the creative industries. The Committee identified a significant gap in UK law when it comes to digital replicas, AI generated likenesses and personality rights.

The report noted that copyright protects works, not people, and that UK law currently provides no standalone protection for an individual's face, voice, likeness or persona. Existing remedies such as copyright, passing off and data protection were described as piecemeal and often insufficient.

As a result, the Committee recommended introducing new protections against unauthorised digital replicas and harmful AI generated imitations. While it stopped short of proposing a full US style publicity right, they noted that potential new personality rights have been a focus of the recent Government led technical working group on “wider protections for creators”.

Significantly, the Committee was not seeking to restrict parody, satire or legitimate artistic expression. Its concern was commercial exploitation and harmful digital imitation.

What Can We Learn From the Dua Lipa Case in the US?

The most interesting aspect of this dispute is not the allegation that Samsung reproduced and used a photograph of Dua Lipa without her permission. Copyright disputes of that nature are well established. The more significant issue is the extent to which the law protects the commercial value of a celebrity's identity.

Modern celebrities operate as businesses. Their names, images, social media presence and endorsement portfolios are all carefully managed assets. Any suggestion of endorsement can have significant commercial consequences, whether true or false.

The case also serves as a warning to businesses relying on third party content suppliers. Obtaining an image from a reputable source does not necessarily eliminate infringement risk. Rights ownership, licensing terms and permissions should be carefully verified before campaign materials reach the market.

Perhaps most importantly, the dispute highlights how the law is struggling to keep pace with technology updates. As AI generated imagery, voice cloning and digital replicas become more sophisticated, the gap between UK and US protections is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore.

How Open Plan Law Can Help

At Open Plan Law, we advise clients on copyright, trade marks, passing off, image related disputes and the unauthorised use of photographs and other creative content.

Whether you are seeking to protect valuable intellectual property, enforce image related rights, negotiate licensing arrangements or respond to allegations of infringement, our team combines specialist IP expertise with a deep understanding of the creative industries to deliver commercially focused, practical advice.

Please get in touch with any queries by emailing sarah.hadland@openplanlaw.com or anna.skurczynska@openplanlaw.com