You May Not be Able to Post Your Own Photo Online – Here’s Why
In May 2026, singer-songwriter Dua Lipa sued Samsung for at least $15 million. The lawsuit claims Samsung placed a photo showing her backstage at the Austin City Limits Festival on boxes for televisions sold throughout the United States without her permission. By doing so, Lipa claims Samsung violated her trademark and publicity rights by suggesting that she endorsed the televisions. Samsung denies intentional misuse, claiming a third-party content provider represented it had obtained the required consents.
In 2021, Lipa found herself on the other side of a dispute after posting a picture of herself waiting in line at an airport while wearing a large hat. Photo agency Integral Images claimed that even though the photo was of Lipa, it owned the copyright. This case was dismissed, probably as part of a settlement.
These cases demonstrate why using an image can be more complicated than one might think. Not only is it possible that someone might not own the copyright to a photo of themselves, but also, the copyright owner might not have the rights required to use the photo.
As a result, a business may need both rights from the photographer and permission from the person who is pictured before using a photo. But the rights issues don’t end there. If the photo’s use suggests an endorsement, a business needs to be sure it has permission for the specific type of use. Plus, it might need to obtain consent to reproduce artwork or other protected material displayed in an image.
Most musicians and small business owners won’t find their faces on television boxes. However, they regularly post photographs, videos, and graphics and use them in promotional material. This article discusses the rights and other issues everyone should consider before posting those materials online. In the article, I’ll talk about photographs and photographers, but the legal issues are the same for other types of visual art.
Who Owns the Copyright?
Copyright protects photographs as creative works, with the photographer being the “author” who initially owns the copyright. However, there are exceptions. An employer may own a photograph taken by an employee within the scope of their employment, and some commissioned works are “works for hire” where the party who commissioned the work owns the copyright. Also, a copyright owner can transfer their copyright through a written agreement.
In the 2021 lawsuit, Lipa was the photograph’s subject. Certainly, some of the image’s value came from her appearing in it. But because she didn’t take the photo, the agency alleged that it, rather than Lipa, owned the copyright to the photograph.
It doesn’t sound like the photo in Lipa’s lawsuit was taken during a formal photo shoot. However, even when a musician or business arranges for a photo shoot, they need to clarify in writing who will own the copyright to the photos. Usually, it should be the party who arranged for the photo shoot.
Owning the Copyright Isn’t Enough
In addition to a photographer owning the copyright to a photo they take, any individuals appearing in the photo have separate rights under trademark or right of publicity laws.
Rights of publicity are governed largely by state law, and their scope varies from state to state. The right of publicity usually applies when a business uses someone’s identity to advertise or sell a product or service. Although a celebrity’s image might have more commercial value than yours or mine, many state right of publicity laws apply to all individuals, regardless of celebrity status. Depending on the state, the right might apply only to commercial use. Or, it could apply even to non-commercial use of an individual’s name, image, likeness, and persona.
In Lipa’s Samsung lawsuit, she also claims that Samsung used her face to sell televisions and created a false association with her. So, even if Samsung proves it owns or licensed the photograph, that won’t answer the question whether Samsung had permission to use Dua Lipa’s image as an apparent product endorser.
A small business can face these issues in seemingly benign situations. Suppose a restaurant hires a photographer to take pictures of patrons enjoying themselves at an event it hosts. The restaurant’s contract with the photographer may clearly state that the restaurant owns the copyright to the photos. But the restaurant still may be unable to post the photos online or use them in promotional materials unless it obtains consent from the individual customers who are recognizable in the photos.
This is why so many event and class registrations include photo consents. When I sign up for music lessons, the school asks me to sign a photo consent form authorizing them to use photos taken of me at the school’s events for marketing purposes. The same may be true when someone purchases tickets for a charity or other event.
What About Background Images and Music
A photograph or video may include other copyrighted works. Suppose the restaurant’s decorations include original art by local artists on display. Or, suppose a band performs on a stage with a hand-painted mural behind it. In those instances, the artists would own the copyright authorizing reproduction of their works.
Public display doesn’t place artwork in the public domain. Even paying an artist to create a mural doesn’t automatically transfer the artist’s copyright or the right to reproduce the art. So, even if the restaurant purchased the original art or the band commissioned the mural, it’s possible they might not be able to use it, even indirectly, in another photograph.
With video, background music adds another layer. Suppose the restaurant has video footage of its live event, with a local band playing in the background. Even if the band doesn’t appear in the video, the restaurant might not be able to use it. That’s because someone else owns the rights to the music.
It’s beyond the scope of this article, but determining music copyright rights can be complicated because owning the right to reproduce printed music doesn’t necessarily transfer the right to perform the music publicly, and rights to specific sound recordings of songs are separate from the rights to the song itself.
Other Rights
Businesses also need to consider what the photograph, caption, tags, and surrounding material suggest about the subject. An evaluation of these issues is complex and involves examining not only the paperwork but also the context in which the photo is used and the impact on the viewer.
A customer holding a product may appear to recommend it. A guest musician’s picture on an event page may suggest that the musician will perform. A celebrity’s face on a product box may suggest the celebrity is endorsing the product, even when the box never says so.
For instance, Lipa alleges in the case against Samsung that consumers could view the packaging as evidence that she had approved, sponsored, or endorsed Samsung’s televisions. Samsung disputes these claims, and the court hasn’t issued a decision. Still, the dispute shows why a business should examine the complete message in context rather than each part of a post in isolation.
There also can be issues when someone intends to promote a product. A musician may recommend equipment supplied by a manufacturer, thank a hotel for a free room, or share an affiliate link. When an endorsement involves payment, free products, employment, affiliate commissions, or another connection to the product, that should be disclosed. The disclosure should be easy to find and understand, not hidden in a comment or among hashtags. The issue becomes even more complex when the product being touted is a security, such as a crypto product, and falls under the Securities and Exchange Commission’s jurisdiction.
Businesses also should review the background for confidential information they didn’t intend to post. A whiteboard may contain a customer’s name, or a computer screen in the background may show confidential contract terms. Reflections, location tags, and private messages also can create problems unrelated to the main subject of the photo.
Best Practices for Musicians and Businesses
Dua Lipa’s two photo disputes demonstrate how complicated the legal issues surrounding the use of photos can be. In the 2021 case, the photo agency claimed that Lipa’s presence in a photograph didn’t give her the copyright in the photo. In the 2026 Samsung case, Lipa claims that whatever rights Samsung obtained didn’t allow it to use her face or persona on television boxes.
This article doesn’t discuss every possible rights issue that can arise from using a photo. Still, musicians and businesses should learn from these examples and take the time to establish processes and evaluate the associated rights before using photos for promotional or social media purposes. The processes should include controls over the use of social media accounts, specifying who may post and who must approve content.
An attorney can help by recommending processes and preparing standard photography agreements, releases, social media policies, influencer terms, and vendor contracts. It may be tempting to search the Internet for forms or ask AI to create policies or contracts. However, these processes and agreements are most effective when they are customized for the situation and the parties involved, and paying an attorney up front to assist with customized documents can save a lot of stress, money, and negative publicity later.
© 2026 by Elizabeth A. Whitman
Any references to clients and their legal situations have been modified to protect client confidentiality.
DISCLAIMER: The content of this blog is for informational purposes only and does not provide legal advice to any person. No one should take any action regarding the information in this blog without first seeking the advice of an attorney. Neither reading this blog nor communication with Whitman Legal Solutions, LLC or Elizabeth A. Whitman creates an attorney-client relationship. No attorney-client relationship will exist with Whitman Legal Solutions, LLC or any attorney affiliated with it unless a written contract is signed by all parties.