(a)(1)Any person who knowingly uses another’s name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness, in any manner, on or in products, merchandise, or goods, or for purposes of advertising or selling, or soliciting purchases of, products, merchandise, goods, or services, without that person’s prior consent, or, in the case of a minor, the prior consent of their parent or legal guardian, shall be liable for any damages sustained by the person or persons injured as a result thereof. In addition, in any action brought under this section, the person who violated the
section shall be liable to the injured party or parties in an amount equal to the greater of seven hundred fifty dollars ($750) or the actual damages suffered by them as a result of the unauthorized use, and any profits from the unauthorized use that are attributable to the use and are not taken into account in computing the actual damages. In establishing these profits, the injured party or parties are required to present proof only of the gross revenue attributable to the unauthorized use, and the person who violated this section is required to prove their deductible expenses. Punitive damages may also be awarded to the injured party
or parties. The prevailing party in any action under this section shall also be entitled to attorney’s fees and costs.
(2)In addition to the remedies available in paragraph (1), a party may seek an injunction or temporary restraining order pursuant to Section 527 of the Code of Civil Procedure. If the court grants the applicant an order under subdivision (c) of Section 527 of the Code of Civil Procedure that requires the respondent to remove, recall, or otherwise cease the publication or distribution of the petitioner’s name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness, the respondent shall complete the removal or recall, or cease the publication or distribution, within two business days from the day the order is served, unless otherwise required by the order.
(b)As used in this
section, “photograph” means any photograph or photographic reproduction, still or moving, or any videotape or live television transmission, of any person, such that the person is readily identifiable.
(1)A person shall be deemed to be readily identifiable from a photograph when one who views the photograph with the naked eye can reasonably determine that the person depicted in the photograph is the same person who is complaining of its unauthorized use.
(2)If the photograph includes more than one person so identifiable, then the person or persons complaining of the use shall be represented as individuals rather than solely as members of a definable group represented in the
photograph. A definable group includes, but is not limited to, the following examples: a crowd at any sporting event, a crowd in any street or public building, the audience at any theatrical or stage production, a glee club, or a baseball team.
(3)A person or persons shall be considered to be represented as members of a definable group if they are represented in the photograph solely as a result of being present at the time the photograph was taken and have not been singled out as individuals in any manner.
(c)Where a photograph or likeness of an employee of the person using the photograph or likeness appearing in the advertisement or other publication prepared by or in behalf of the user is only incidental, and not essential, to the purpose of the publication in which
it appears, there shall arise a rebuttable presumption affecting the burden of producing evidence that the failure to obtain the consent of the employee was not a knowing use of the employee’s photograph or likeness.
(d)For purposes of this section, a use of a name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness in connection with any news,
public affairs, or sports broadcast or account, or any political campaign, shall not constitute a use for which consent is required under subdivision (a).
(e)The use of a name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness in a commercial medium shall not constitute a use for which consent is required under subdivision (a) solely because the material containing the use is commercially sponsored or contains paid advertising. Rather it shall be a question of fact whether or not the use of the person’s name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness was so directly connected with the commercial sponsorship or with the paid advertising as to constitute a use for which consent is required under subdivision (a).
(f)Nothing in this section shall apply to the owners or employees
of any medium used for advertising, including, but not limited to, newspapers, magazines, radio and television networks and stations, cable television systems, billboards, and transit ads, by whom any advertisement or solicitation in violation of this section is published or disseminated, unless it is established that those owners or employees had knowledge of the unauthorized use of the person’s name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness as prohibited by this section.
(g)The remedies provided for in this section are cumulative and shall be in addition to any others provided for by law.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
210
cases (
54 in the last 5 years), 1973–2026 · leading case:
Fraley v. Facebook, Inc., 830 F. Supp. 2d 785 (N.D. Cal. 2011).
Fraley v. Facebook, Inc., 830 F. Supp. 2d 785 (N.D. Cal. 2011).
· cites it 14× “Plaintiffs allege that Facebook’s practice of misappropriating their names and likenesses for commercial endorsements without their consent (1) violated their statutory right of publicity under California Civil Code § 3344; (2) violated the UCL; and (3) unjustly enriched…”
Donald Newcombe v. Adolf Coors Co. Foote, Cone & Belding & Time, Inc., 157 F.3d 686 (9th Cir. 1998).
· cites it 10× “Cal. Civ.Code § 3344 and Common Law Misappropriation Newcombe contends that the defendants violated his right of privacy and used his likeness and identity to their commercial advantage in violation of his statutory rights under Cal.”
Samuel Keller v. Elec. Arts Inc., 724 F.3d 1268 (9th Cir. 2013).
· cites it 9× “3 Keller filed a putative class-action complaint asserting that Electronic Arts (EA) violated his right of publicity under California Civil Code § 3344 and California common law by using his likeness as part of the NCAA Football video series.”
Jules Jordan Video, Inc. v. 144942 Canada Inc., 617 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2010).
· cites it 4× “Defendants appeal from the district court’s decision that Gasper’s right of publicity claim under California Civil Code § 3344 was not preempted by the Copyright Act.”
Charles Yeager v. Connie Bowlin, 693 F.3d 1076 (9th Cir. 2012).
· cites it 3× “In 2008, Yeager brought eleven claims against the Bowlins, including violations of the federal Lanham Act, California’s common law right to privacy and California’s statutory right to publicity, Cal. Civ.Code § 3344. At his deposition in this action, Yeager did not recall…”
Perfect 10, Inc. v. Cybernet Ventures, Inc., 213 F. Supp. 2d 1146 (C.D. Cal. 2002).
· cites it 5× “without such person’s prior consent, ... shall be liable for any damages sustained by the person or persons injured as a result thereof.”
Cross v. Facebook, Inc., 45 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 2552 (Cal. Ct. App. 5th 2017).
· cites it 3× “The fourth cause of action, for statutory right of publicity, is based on Civil Code section 3344, which provides in relevant part as follows: "Any person who knowingly uses another's name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness, in any manner .”
Downing v. Abercrombie & Fitch, 265 F.3d 994 (9th Cir. 2001).
· cites it 7× “On appeal, Appellants contend: (1) Abercrombie’s use of the photograph is not protected under the First Amendment; (2) the state law publicity claims are not preempted by the Copyright Act; (3) California law is the proper choice of law for the claim under California Civil Code…”
Michael Davis v. Elec. Arts Inc., 775 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2015).
· cites it 6× “The plaintiffs asserted claims for right of publicity under California Civil Code § 3344 and California common law, conversion, trespass to chattels and unjust enrichment on behalf of themselves and all former NFL players depicted in Madden NFL.”
Montana v. San Jose Mercury News, Inc., 23 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1920 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995).
· cites it 6× “[S]uch activities are privileged and do not fall within ‘the purposes of trade’ contemplated by Section 51 [New York’s equivalent of California Civil Code section 3344], notwithstanding that they are also carried on for a profit [citations].”
Hart v. Elec. Arts, Inc., 717 F.3d 141 (3rd Cir. 2013).
· cites it 4× “2006) (discussing both the statutory and the common law cause of action); see also Cal. Civ. Code § 3344 ; Eastwood v. Superior Court, 198 Cal.”
— Cal. Civil Code § 3344(a) — 29 cases
Fraley v. Facebook, Inc., 830 F. Supp. 2d 785 (N.D. Cal. 2011).
“Plaintiffs allege that Facebook’s practice of misappropriating their names and likenesses for commercial endorsements without their consent (1) violated their statutory right of publicity under California Civil Code § 3344; (2) violated the UCL; and (3) unjustly enriched…”
Jules Jordan Video, Inc. v. 144942 Canada Inc., 617 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2010).
“Defendants appeal from the district court’s decision that Gasper’s right of publicity claim under California Civil Code § 3344 was not preempted by the Copyright Act.”
Downing v. Abercrombie & Fitch, 265 F.3d 994 (9th Cir. 2001).
“On appeal, Appellants contend: (1) Abercrombie’s use of the photograph is not protected under the First Amendment; (2) the state law publicity claims are not preempted by the Copyright Act; (3) California law is the proper choice of law for the claim under California Civil Code…”
Hart v. Elec. Arts, Inc., 717 F.3d 141 (3rd Cir. 2013).
“2006) (discussing both the statutory and the common law cause of action); see also Cal. Civ. Code § 3344 ; Eastwood v. Superior Court, 198 Cal.”
— Cal. Civil Code § 3344(b)(1) — 1 case
— Cal. Civil Code § 3344(b)(2) — 1 case
— Cal. Civil Code § 3344(d) — 15 cases
Michael Davis v. Elec. Arts Inc., 775 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2015).
“The plaintiffs asserted claims for right of publicity under California Civil Code § 3344 and California common law, conversion, trespass to chattels and unjust enrichment on behalf of themselves and all former NFL players depicted in Madden NFL.”
Samuel Keller v. Elec. Arts Inc., 724 F.3d 1268 (9th Cir. 2013).
“3 Keller filed a putative class-action complaint asserting that Electronic Arts (EA) violated his right of publicity under California Civil Code § 3344 and California common law by using his likeness as part of the NCAA Football video series.”
Fraley v. Facebook, Inc., 830 F. Supp. 2d 785 (N.D. Cal. 2011).
“Plaintiffs allege that Facebook’s practice of misappropriating their names and likenesses for commercial endorsements without their consent (1) violated their statutory right of publicity under California Civil Code § 3344; (2) violated the UCL; and (3) unjustly enriched…”
Perfect 10, Inc. v. Cybernet Ventures, Inc., 213 F. Supp. 2d 1146 (C.D. Cal. 2002).
“without such person’s prior consent, ... shall be liable for any damages sustained by the person or persons injured as a result thereof.”
— Cal. Civil Code § 3344(e) — 1 case
— Cal. Civil Code § 3344(f) — 2 cases
Perfect 10, Inc. v. Cybernet Ventures, Inc., 213 F. Supp. 2d 1146 (C.D. Cal. 2002).
“without such person’s prior consent, ... shall be liable for any damages sustained by the person or persons injured as a result thereof.”
— Cal. Civil Code § 3344(g) — 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.