Wash. Rev. Code » Title 63 · Chapter 63.60
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 63.60.010 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
*** CHANGE IN 2026 *** (SEE 5886-S.SL) ***
Every individual or personality has a property right in the use of his or her name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness. Such right exists in the name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness of individuals or personalities deceased before, on, or after June 11, 1998. This right shall be freely transferable, assignable, and licensable, in whole or in part, by any otherwise permissible form of inter vivos or testamentary transfer, including without limitation a will or other testamentary instrument, trust, contract, community property agreement, or cotenancy with survivorship provisions or payable-on-death provisions, whether the will or other testamentary instrument, trust, contract, community property agreement, or cotenancy document is entered into or executed before, on, or after June 11, 1998, by the deceased individual or personality or by any subsequent owner of the deceased individual's or personality's rights as recognized by this chapter; or, if none is applicable, then the owner of the rights shall be determined under the laws of intestate succession applicable to interests in intangible personal property. The property right does not expire upon the death of the individual or personality, regardless of whether the law of the domicile, residence, or citizenship of the individual or personality at the time of death or otherwise recognizes a similar or identical property right. The right exists whether or not it was commercially exploited by the individual or the personality during the individual's or the personality's lifetime. The rights recognized under this chapter shall be deemed to have existed before June 11, 1998, and at the time of death of any deceased individual or personality or subsequent successor of their rights for the purpose of determining the person or persons entitled to these property rights as provided in RCW 63.60.030. This chapter is intended to apply to all individuals and personalities, living and deceased, regardless of place of domicile or place of domicile at time of death.
[ 2008 c 62 s 1; 1998 c 274 s 1.]

Notes:

Application—2008 c 62: "This act applies to all causes of action commenced on or after June 11, 1998, regardless of when the cause of action arose. To this extent, this act applies retroactively, but in all other respects it applies prospectively." [ 2008 c 62 s 4.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 26 cases (20 in the last 5 years), 2010–2026 · leading case: Experience Hendrix L.L.C. v. Hendrixlicensing.com Ltd., 762 F.3d 829 (9th Cir. 2014).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Experience Hendrix L.L.C. v. Hendrixlicensing.com Ltd., 762 F.3d 829 (9th Cir. 2014). · cites it 2× “” Wash. Rev. Code § 63.60.010 . The amended WPRA recognizes that every person “has a property right in the use of his or her name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness.”
Experience Hendrix, L.L.C v. HendrixLicensing.com, Ltd., 766 F. Supp. 2d 1122 (W.D. Wash. 2011). · cites it 7× “In 2008, RCW 63.60.010 was revised to provide inter alia that the property right in an individual’s or a personality’s “name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness” “does not expire upon the death of the individual or personality, regardless of whether the law of the…”
Aronson v. Dog Eat Dog Films, Inc., 738 F. Supp. 2d 1104 (W.D. Wash. 2010). “60.050 and .060. Under both the statutory cause of action and the common law, there is no cause of action for the publication of matters in the public interest.”
Experience Hendrix LLC v. Hendrixlicensing.Com Ltd., 742 F.3d 377 (9th Cir. 2014). · cites it 2× “” Wash. Rev. Code § 63.60.010 . The amended WPRA recognizes that every person “has a property right in the use of his or her name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness.”
Gray v. Amazon.com Inc (W.D. Wash. 2023). · cites it 4× “ORDER - 6 1 Washington’s Personality Rights Act, RCW § 63.60.010 et seq. Compl. ¶¶ 103-165.”
Gray v. Amazon.com Inc (W.D. Wash. 2023). · cites it 4× “; (3) intrusion upon seclusion; and (4) infringement of personality rights in 12 violation of Washington’s Personality Rights Act (“PRA”), RCW § 63.60.010 et seq. Id. ¶¶ 103- 13 165.”
LaRock v. ZoomInfo Tech. LLC (W.D. Wash. 2025). · cites it 4× “CODE § 63.60.010. The WPRA details the 21 circumstances under which these rights are infringed: 22 23 24 1 Any person who uses or authorizes the use of a living or deceased individual’s or personality’s name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness, on or in goods, 2…”
Wallen v. Consum. Reports, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. 2022). · cites it 2× “” Wash. Rev. Code § 63.60.010 . Further, “[a]ny person who uses or authorizes the use of a[n] .”
Olson Kundig Inc v. 12th Avenue Iron Inc (W.D. Wash. 2023). · cites it 2× “§ 1114 ; infringement of the TOM KUNDIG COLLECTION 14 trademark3 under Washington common law; violation of the Washington Personality 15 Rights Act (“WPRA”), RCW 63.60.010 et seq.; and violation of the Washington 16 Consumer Protection Act (“WCPA”), RCW 19.”
James Gray v. amazon.com Inc (9th Cir. 2024). “; (3) invasion of privacy – intrusion on seclusion; and (4) infringement of personality rights under the Washington Personality Rights Act (WPRA), Wash. Rev. Code § 63.60.010 et seq. The district court dismissed the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6),…”
In re Hearst Commc'ns State Right of Publicity Statute Cases (S.D.N.Y. 2022). “; Washington, Wash. Rev. Code § 63.60.010 , et seq.; and Puerto Rico, P.”
Bohnak v. Trusted Media Brands, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. 2023). “Further, “Any person who uses or authorizes the use of a living or deceased individual’s … name … on or in goods, merchandise, or products entered into commerce in this state … without written or oral, express or implied consent of the owner of the right, has infringed such…”
Show all 26 citing cases →
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.