Vondran Legal® Photo Infringement Insights - Paid photos and your rights to post!

A photograph shows your face. You paid for the photo shoot. The photographer sent you the digital file. Surely, you can post it anywhere you want—right?

Not necessarily.

One of the most misunderstood principles of copyright law is that the person appearing in a photograph does not automatically own the copyright. In most cases, the photographer initially owns it.

But the legal analysis also works in the opposite direction. A photographer—or a company that licenses the photographer's copyright—may not possess the separate rights needed to use the photographed person's identity in advertising.

That means a business may need at least two different permissions:

1. Permission from the photograph's copyright owner; and

2. Permission from the recognizable person appearing in the photograph.

A recently filed lawsuit involving Dua Lipa and Samsung provides an excellent illustration of these overlapping rights.

The Dua Lipa–Samsung Photo Lawsuit

On May 8, 2026, singer-songwriter Dua Lipa filed a federal lawsuit against Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. in the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

The case is Dua Lipa v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Case No. 2:26-cv-05019.

According to Lipa's complaint, Samsung prominently reproduced a photograph of her on cardboard boxes containing Samsung televisions sold throughout the United States.

The photograph, titled “Dua Lipa—Backstage at Austin City Limits, 2024,” was reportedly taken before Lipa performed at the Austin City Limits Festival. Lipa alleges that she owns the photograph's registered copyright.

She further alleges that:

• Samsung did not have permission to reproduce the photograph on television boxes;

• She never authorized Samsung to use her image or likeness;

• She did not approve or endorse the televisions;

• She discovered the use around June 2025;

• She repeatedly demanded that Samsung stop; and

• Samsung continued selling or distributing the affected products.

Lipa is seeking at least $15 million based on copyright infringement, violation of her right of publicity, false endorsement, and related trademark claims.

Samsung has publicly denied intentional misuse. The company says a third-party content provider supplied the image and expressly assured Samsung that the necessary permissions—including permission for use on retail packaging—had been obtained.

As of August 5, 2026, Samsung had not filed its substantive response, and the court had not decided whether anyone was liable. Lipa's assertions therefore remain allegations.

Still, the dispute provides important lessons for photographers, musicians, influencers, marketing agencies, content platforms, and businesses that use photographs commercially.

Who Owns the Copyright in a Photograph?

Under copyright law, the person who takes a photograph is generally its author and initial copyright owner.

The person appearing in the picture does not ordinarily become the copyright owner merely because the photograph shows that person.

This rule applies even when the subject gives the photograph much of its commercial value.

If someone takes a photograph of a celebrity walking through an airport, the celebrity's presence may make the photograph valuable. But unless an agreement or another legal rule changes ownership, the photographer—not the celebrity—generally owns the copyright.

Several circumstances can change that result.

Photographs Taken by Employees

An employer may own photographs taken by an employee within the scope of the employee's job.

For example, a company may own product photographs taken by a staff photographer hired to create marketing materials.

Works Made for Hire

Certain commissioned photographs may qualify as works made for hire, but only when the Copyright Act's technical requirements are satisfied.

Merely paying a freelance photographer does not automatically make the photograph a work made for hire.

Written Copyright Assignments

A photographer can transfer copyright ownership through a signed written agreement.

A photographer can also retain ownership while giving the client a limited or broad license to use the images.

This distinction matters. Receiving a digital file is not the same as receiving the copyright.

Paying for a Photo Shoot Does Not Necessarily Give You the Copyright

Suppose a musician hires a photographer for a promotional photo shoot and pays $2,000. The photographer delivers 50 edited photographs.

What did the musician purchase?

The answer depends on the contract.

The musician might receive:

• Ownership of the copyrights;

• An exclusive license;

• A nonexclusive commercial license;

• Permission limited to social media;

• Permission limited to a website and electronic press kit; or

• Merely copies of the photographs for personal use.

Without a clear written agreement, the parties may have very different expectations.

The musician may believe, “I paid for the shoot, so I own the photos.”

The photographer may believe, “I created the photographs, so I own the copyrights and only licensed limited promotional use.”

That disagreement can lead to a copyright claim when the photographs later appear on album covers, merchandise, advertisements, product packaging, or third-party websites.

Attorney Steve Key Takeaway

Possession is not necessarily ownership. Payment is not necessarily ownership. Appearing in a photograph is not ownership.

A photography agreement should clearly address copyright ownership, permitted uses, duration, geographic territory, exclusivity, sublicensing, photographer credit, merchandise, advertising, and enforcement rights.

Owning or Licensing the Copyright May Not Be Enough

The Samsung dispute demonstrates the other side of the issue.

Even if Samsung proves that it obtained a valid copyright license, that may not answer whether Samsung had permission to use Dua Lipa's identity to advertise or sell televisions.

Copyright protects the photograph as a creative work.

The right of publicity protects the commercial value of a person's identity.

Trademark and false-endorsement law may protect against uses that misleadingly suggest that the person sponsors, approves, or is affiliated with a product.

These are separate rights.

A company might therefore have permission from the photographer but still face a claim from the person in the photograph.

What Is the Right of Publicity?

The right of publicity generally gives a person some control over commercial uses of their identity.

Publicity rights are primarily governed by state law, so the scope of protection varies between states.

California Civil Code Section 3344 addresses unauthorized commercial use of a person's:

• Name;

• Voice;

• Signature;

• Photograph; or

• Likeness.

A statutory claim generally requires a knowing use of one of these protected attributes for advertising, selling, or soliciting purchases without the person's consent.

California also recognizes a common-law right of publicity. A plaintiff generally must establish:

1. Use of the plaintiff's identity;

2. Appropriation of that identity for the defendant's advantage;

3. Lack of consent; and

4. Resulting injury.

These rights are not limited to movie stars or recording artists. Celebrity status can substantially affect the value of a claim, but many state publicity laws protect ordinary individuals as well.

Why a Model Release Matters

A model release is an agreement through which a person gives permission to use their name, photograph, likeness, or other identifying characteristics.

The release should match the anticipated use.

A well-drafted model release may address:

• The photographs or session covered;

• The parties authorized to use the images;

• Social-media use;

• Websites and email marketing;

• Paid advertising;

• Product packaging;

• Merchandise;

• Print and broadcast media;

• Geographic territory;

• Duration;

• Editing and cropping;

• Sublicensing;

• Compensation;

• Approval rights;

• Sensitive or controversial uses;

• Artificial-intelligence alterations; and

• Digital replicas or synthetic endorsements.

A release that permits use “for promotional purposes” may create uncertainty when a photograph later appears on millions of retail boxes.

The more valuable and visible the use, the more specifically the agreement should address it.

Attorney Steve Key Takeaway

A copyright license and a model release solve different problems.

The copyright license authorizes use of the photograph. The model release authorizes specified uses of the person's identity.

For important commercial campaigns, a business may need both.

Can a Photograph Create a False Endorsement?

Yes.

Section 43(a) of the federal Lanham Act can apply when a business uses someone's identity in a way that is likely to confuse consumers about that person's affiliation, sponsorship, or approval of a product.

The question is not limited to what the advertisement expressly says.

A product package may never state, “Dua Lipa endorses this television.” Nevertheless, prominently placing her face on the package could arguably communicate an endorsement.

Courts may consider:

• How recognizable the person is;

• How prominently the image appears;

• Whether the person commonly enters endorsement agreements;

• Whether the person could plausibly endorse that type of product;

• The surrounding words and logos;

• Evidence of actual consumer confusion;

• The defendant's intent;

• The sophistication of consumers; and

• Whether the presentation includes an effective disclaimer.

Lipa's complaint quotes social-media users who allegedly referred to the product as the “Dua Lipa TV Box.” One commenter reportedly said they would buy the television because Lipa appeared on it.

These comments help demonstrate that the image had commercial appeal. However, liking the packaging is not necessarily the same as believing Lipa endorsed Samsung.

If the case continues, consumer-survey evidence may become important.

Samsung's Potential Content-Illustration Defense

Samsung may argue that Lipa's picture was not presented as an endorsement.

The company could contend that the image merely illustrated music or entertainment available through Samsung TV Plus or the XITE Hits channel.

The complete packaging design will matter:

• Did the photograph appear inside an image of a television screen?

• Was the music channel clearly identified?

• Were other programs or entertainers shown?

• Did the box explain that the images represented available content?

• Was Lipa's image the dominant visual element?

• Would an ordinary purchaser understand the picture as content, endorsement, or both?

This illustrates an important principle: rights clearance cannot be conducted by examining each element in isolation.

The legal team must evaluate the complete message created by the photograph, product, caption, logos, placement, and surrounding design.

Attorney Steve Key Takeaway

A business should ask two different questions:

“Do we have permission to use this image?”

And:

“What will consumers think this use means?”

A license may answer the first question without answering the second.

Can a Company Blame Its Marketing Agency or Content Vendor?

A company's reliance on a third-party vendor generally does not automatically eliminate direct copyright liability.

Copyright infringement usually does not require proof that the defendant intended to violate the law.

A company may still be liable even if it sincerely believed its agency or content provider had obtained permission.

However, good-faith reliance can still matter.

It may:

• Weaken a claim of willful infringement;

• Reduce statutory damages;

• Support a contractual indemnification claim;

• Shift responsibility to the vendor;

• Trigger insurance coverage; or

• Affect settlement negotiations.

Samsung's claimed reliance on its content partner may be particularly relevant to conduct occurring before Lipa provided notice.

The situation may change after a detailed cease-and-desist letter arrives.

A company that receives credible notice should promptly:

• Preserve relevant records;

• Investigate ownership and licensing;

• Notify the vendor;

• Review indemnification rights;

• Notify applicable insurers;

• Suspend new uses when practical;

• Stop producing new materials;

• Determine what inventory remains under its control; and

• Document its response.

Continuing to use an image after receiving notice can strengthen allegations of willful conduct.

How Much Is an Unauthorized Photograph Worth?

The answer depends on the available claims and the evidence.

A copyright owner may seek actual damages and profits attributable to the infringement. When statutory requirements are satisfied, the owner may elect statutory damages.

Copyright statutory damages generally range from $750 to $30,000 per infringed work. A court may increase the award to as much as $150,000 for willful infringement or reduce it in qualifying innocent-infringement circumstances.

Because Lipa's complaint identifies one photograph, the requested $15 million should not be confused with $15 million in copyright statutory damages.

A larger recovery would likely require proof involving:

• The fair-market value of an endorsement;

• Lost licensing revenue;

• Samsung profits attributable to the image;

• Injury to Lipa's brand;

• Publicity-right damages;

• Punitive damages;

• Lanham Act remedies; or

• Some permissible combination of nonduplicative damages.

Proving Profits Can Be Difficult

Even if Lipa's photograph appeared on hundreds of thousands of boxes, she would not automatically be entitled to all profits from every television sold.

Samsung could argue that consumers purchased its televisions because of:

• Price;

• Screen size;

• Picture quality;

• Brand reputation;

• Product features;

• Retail promotions;

• Reviews; or

• Availability.

The parties may need evidence such as:

• Comparable photography licenses;

• Comparable celebrity endorsement agreements;

• Sales data;

• Consumer surveys;

• Internal marketing communications;

• Packaging-selection documents;

• A/B testing;

• The number and duration of uses; and

• Evidence showing whether the photograph affected purchasing decisions.

A plaintiff also cannot recover the same damages repeatedly under copyright, publicity, and trademark theories. Although overlapping claims may be pleaded, courts generally prohibit duplicative recovery for the same injury.

Photographs Can Contain Other Protected Material

The photographer and the people pictured are not the only potential rights holders.

A photograph or video may also include:

Artwork

Murals, paintings, sculptures, illustrations, and other artwork may be protected by copyright.

Buying a painting does not ordinarily transfer the copyright. Likewise, commissioning a mural does not automatically give the client every right to reproduce it in advertisements or merchandise.

Music

A video may capture background music. Rights in the musical composition and the sound recording are separate.

A public-performance license does not necessarily authorize synchronizing the music with a promotional video.

Trademarks

Logos, branded products, uniforms, signs, or distinctive packaging can create trademark or false-affiliation concerns.

Confidential Information

A whiteboard may show a client's name. A computer screen may reveal a contract. A badge may display personal information. Reflections may expose private messages or people outside the frame.

Private Property

Photography on private property may be restricted by contracts, ticket terms, location agreements, or venue rules.

Photo-Clearance Checklist for Businesses

Before using a photograph commercially, a business should determine:

1. Who took the photograph?

2. Who currently owns its copyright?

3. Is there a signed assignment or license?

4. Does the license cover the exact proposed use?

5. Does it include product packaging, advertising, merchandise, and social media?

6. Can the licensee sublicense the image to affiliates, agencies, retailers, and platforms?

7. Are recognizable people depicted?

8. Are appropriate model or publicity releases available?

9. Could the presentation suggest endorsement, sponsorship, attendance, employment, or affiliation?

10. Does the image contain artwork, music, logos, or confidential information?

11. Have all time and geographic restrictions been followed?

12. Does the vendor agreement include meaningful warranties and indemnification?

13. Can the business produce records proving the clearance process?

Contract Protections for Businesses Using Third-Party Content

A vendor agreement should address more than whether the vendor “owns or controls the rights.”

Consider provisions covering:

• Copyright ownership and chain of title;

• Model and publicity releases;

• Advertising and product-packaging rights;

• Sublicensing;

• Endorsement restrictions;

• Representations and warranties;

• Delivery of licenses and releases upon request;

• Defense and indemnification;

• Insurance;

• Claim-notification procedures;

• Takedown and replacement obligations;

• Responsibility for recalled inventory; and

• Survival of warranties after the contract ends.

An indemnity is only as valuable as the vendor's ability to honor it. For significant campaigns, documentation and insurance may be as important as contractual promises.

Best Practices for Photographers

Photographers should:

• Register commercially important photographs promptly;

• Preserve original files and metadata;

• Use written licenses;

• Define media, duration, territory, exclusivity, and sublicensing;

• Obtain releases suited to anticipated uses;

• Avoid promising rights they do not control;

• Identify third-party artwork and property restrictions;

• Maintain organized licensing records;

• Address artificial-intelligence training and synthetic alteration; and

• Specify credit requirements.

Best Practices for Models, Musicians, and Influencers

People appearing in photographs should:

• Clarify copyright ownership before the shoot;

• Review model releases carefully;

• Address advertising, packaging, and merchandise;

• Limit objectionable or sensitive product categories;

• Coordinate releases with existing endorsement exclusivity;

• Address AI alteration and digital replicas;

• Preserve approval rights when appropriate; and

• Keep copies of every signed agreement.

Frequently Asked Questions

If I am in a photograph, do I own it?

Usually not. The photographer generally owns the initial copyright unless an employment relationship, work-for-hire agreement, or signed transfer changes that result.

If I paid the photographer, do I own the copyright?

Not automatically. Payment may purchase services, copies, or a limited license. Copyright ownership should be addressed in a signed agreement.

Can I post a professional photograph of myself on social media?

Only if you own the copyright or have permission covering that use. Being pictured does not, by itself, create copyright permission.

Does giving the photographer credit prevent infringement?

No. Credit does not replace permission.

Can a photographer sell my photograph to an advertiser?

Copyright ownership alone may not authorize commercial exploitation of your identity. A model or publicity release may also be required.

Is a photograph on social media free for anyone to reuse?

No. Public availability does not place a photograph in the public domain.

Does a stock-photo license include model releases?

Sometimes. The license and accompanying releases must be reviewed. An image labeled “editorial use only” generally should not be used in advertising.

Can a company rely on a vendor's statement that an image is cleared?

Reliance may affect damages or support indemnification, but it may not prevent direct liability. High-value uses warrant review of the actual licenses and releases.

Attorney Steve's Final Takeaways

The Dua Lipa–Samsung lawsuit teaches several important lessons:

1. A photograph can involve multiple owners and multiple legal rights.

2. The photographer's permission does not automatically equal the subject's permission.

3. A model release does not automatically transfer copyright ownership.

4. A streaming, editorial, or social-media license may not cover retail packaging.

5. A vendor's assurance may shift risk without eliminating liability.

6. Conduct after receiving a cease-and-desist notice can affect willfulness.

7. False endorsement depends on the complete message perceived by consumers.

8. Sales volume alone does not prove recoverable profits.

9. Agreements should address the entire distribution chain.

10. The least expensive photo dispute is usually the one prevented by a careful clearance process.

Before placing a photograph in paid advertising, product packaging, merchandise, or another major commercial campaign, businesses should conduct and document a complete rights review.

Photographers, musicians, models, influencers, and other creators should also define copyright ownership, usage rights, publicity rights, and endorsement permissions before valuable images begin circulating.

A clear photography agreement, properly drafted model release, vendor contract, and repeatable content-approval process can prevent expensive litigation, business disruption, and negative publicity.

Legal disclaimer: This article is provided for general educational and informational purposes only. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright, trademark, privacy, contract, and right-of-publicity laws vary by jurisdiction and depend on the particular facts. Consult qualified legal counsel regarding a specific photograph, agreement, claim, or proposed use.