Nev. Rev. Stat. » NRS: CHAPTER 597 - MISCELLANEOUS TRADE REGULATIONS AND PROHIBITED ACTS
Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 597.770 (2026)

Definitions

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 597.770  Definitions.  As used in NRS 597.770 to 597.810, inclusive:

      1.  “Commercial use” includes the use of the name, voice, signature, photograph or likeness of a person on or in any product, merchandise or goods or for the purposes of advertising, selling or soliciting the purchase of any product, merchandise, goods or service.

      2.  “Governmental agency” means the Commission on Tourism of the Department of Tourism and Cultural Affairs and a governmental entity in a county whose population is 100,000 or more that has as a statutory purpose, power or duty the promotion of travel or tourism in this state and that employs photographers full-time or by contract to take pictures to promote travel and tourism, portray historical events or commemorate persons or physical sites that are significant in the history of the state.

      3.  “Person” means a natural person.

      (Added to NRS by 1989, 1608; A 1995, 1645)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1994–2024 · leading case: Fifty-Six Hope Road Music, Ltd. v. A.V.E.L.A., Inc., 778 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2015).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Fifty-Six Hope Road Music, Ltd. v. A.V.E.L.A., Inc., 778 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2015). “§ 1125 (a), (3) common law trademark infringement, (4) unauthorized commercial use of right to publicity under Nev. Rev. Stat. § 597.770 et seq., and (5) intentional interference with prospective economic advantage.”
Fifty-Six Hope Road Music, Ltd. v. A.V.E.L.A., Inc., 688 F. Supp. 2d 1148 (D. Nev. 2010). · cites it 3× “Nev.Rev.Stat. § 597.770 et seq. The right of publicity “endures for a term consisting of the life of the person and 50 years after his death, regardless of whether the person commercially exploits the right during his lifetime.”
Hetter v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court of the State of Nevada, 874 P.2d 762 (Nev. 1994). “The other cause of action Sanchez alleges is the violation of her right of publicity, which in this state has been codified in NRS 597.770 to 597.810 (formerly NRS 598.”
Prima v. Darden Restaurants, Inc., 78 F. Supp. 2d 337 (D.N.J. 2000). “Except in certain limited circumstances, which basically implicate the Free Speech Clause of First Amendment of the United States Constitution, the use of another’s name, voice, signature, photograph or likeness requires the person’s written consent.”
K & K Promotions, Inc. v. Disney Enter., Inc. (D. Nev. 2021). · cites it 4× “It also 19 brings Nevada common law claims for trademark infringement/unfair competition, unjust 20 enrichment, and a claim of right to publicity under NRS 597.770. Disney now moves to 21 dismiss K&K’s claims in full under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.”
Sessa v. Ancestry.com Operations Inc. (D. Nev. 2021). · cites it 3× “23 Plaintiffs raise the following claims based upon Ancestry’s alleged use of Plaintiffs’ 24 names, images, likenesses, and personal information for the purpose of advertising, selling, and 25 soliciting subscriptions to the Yearbook Database: (1) violation of the Nevada Right…”
Sears v. Russell Road Food & Beverage, LLC (D. Nev. 2020). · cites it 2× “They also argue that if a shorter limitation period applies, their claims are 17 nevertheless timely under the continuing tort doctrine. 18 Nevada has enacted a statutory cause of action for the unauthorized use of a person’s 19 rights of publicity in his or her name, voice,…”
Moreland v. Goldy LLC (D. Nev. 2021). · cites it 2× “at 1072 11 (quoting Nev. Rev. Stat. § 597.770 (1)). Plaintiffs have satisfied these elements.”
Pruchnicki v. Envision Healthcare Corp. (D. Nev. 2020). “13 Rather than provide any explanation of these markets or the value of her information, 14 plaintiff supports her argument by citing NRS 597.770, which “provides that there is a ‘right of 15 publicity’ in, among other things, a person’s name .”
Sessa v. Ancestry.com Operations Inc. (D. Nev. 2024). “In that Order, the Court dismissed all claims 1 against Ancestry except the claim brought under Nevada’s right of publicity statute, NRS 2 § 597.770. (See generally id.). The Order also found that the Court had personal jurisdiction 3 over Ancestry under the purposeful direction…”
In re Hearst Commc'ns State Right of Publicity Statute Cases (S.D.N.Y. 2022). “; Nevada, Nev. Rev. Stat. § 597.770 , et seq.; Ohio, Ohio Rev.”
Bohnak v. Trusted Media Brands, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. 2023). “” Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 597.770 . (Compl. ¶¶ 13-15.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 597.770(1) — 3 cases
Fifty-Six Hope Road Music, Ltd. v. A.V.E.L.A., Inc., 688 F. Supp. 2d 1148 (D. Nev. 2010). “Nev.Rev.Stat. § 597.770 et seq. The right of publicity “endures for a term consisting of the life of the person and 50 years after his death, regardless of whether the person commercially exploits the right during his lifetime.”
Sears v. Russell Road Food & Beverage, LLC (D. Nev. 2020). “They also argue that if a shorter limitation period applies, their claims are 17 nevertheless timely under the continuing tort doctrine. 18 Nevada has enacted a statutory cause of action for the unauthorized use of a person’s 19 rights of publicity in his or her name, voice,…”
Sessa v. Ancestry.com Operations Inc. (D. Nev. 2021). “23 Plaintiffs raise the following claims based upon Ancestry’s alleged use of Plaintiffs’ 24 names, images, likenesses, and personal information for the purpose of advertising, selling, and 25 soliciting subscriptions to the Yearbook Database: (1) violation of the Nevada Right…”
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.