Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 63.60.070 (2026)
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) For purposes of RCW 63.60.050, the use of a name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness in connection with matters of cultural, historical, political, religious, educational, newsworthy, or public interest, including, without limitation, comment, criticism, satire, and parody relating thereto, shall not constitute a use for which consent is required under this chapter. A matter exempt from consent under this subsection does not lose such exempt status because it appears in the form of a paid advertisement if it is clear that the principal purpose of the advertisement is to comment on such matter.
(2) This chapter does not apply to the use or authorization of use of an individual's or personality's name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness, in any of the following:
(a) Single and original works of fine art, including but not limited to photographic, graphic, and sculptural works of art that are not published in more than five copies;
(b) A literary work, theatrical work, musical composition, film, radio, online or television program, magazine article, news story, public affairs report, or sports broadcast or account, or with any political campaign when the use does not inaccurately claim or state an endorsement by the individual or personality;
(c) An advertisement or commercial announcement for a use permitted by subsections (1) and (7) of this section and (a) or (b) of this subsection;
(d) An advertisement, commercial announcement, or packaging for the authorized sale, distribution, performance, broadcast, or display of a literary, musical, cinematographic, or other artistic work using the name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness of the writer, author, composer, director, actor, or artist who created the work, where such individual or personality consented to the use of his or her name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness on or in connection with the initial sale, distribution, performance, or display thereof; and
(e) The advertisement or sale of a rare or fine product, including but not limited to books, which incorporates the signature of the author.
(3) It is no defense to an infringement action under this chapter that the use of an individual's or personality's name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness includes more than one individual or personality so identifiable. However, the individuals or personalities complaining of the use shall not bring their cause of action as a class action.
(4) RCW 63.60.050 does not apply to the owners or employees of any medium used for advertising, including but not limited to, newspapers, magazines, radio and television stations, online service providers, billboards, and transit ads, who have published or disseminated any advertisement or solicitation in violation of this chapter, unless the advertisement or solicitation was intended to promote the medium itself.
(5) This chapter does not apply to a use or authorization of use of an individual's or personality's name that is merely descriptive and used fairly and in good faith only to identify or describe something other than the individual or personality, such as, without limitation, to describe or identify a place, a legacy, a style, a theory, an ownership interest, or a party to a transaction or to accurately describe the goods or services of a party.
(6) This chapter does not apply to the use of an individual's or personality's name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness when the use of the individual's or personality's name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness is an insignificant, de minimis, or incidental use.
(7) This chapter does not apply to the distribution, promotion, transfer, or license of a photograph or other material containing an individual's or personality's name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness to a third party for use in a manner which is lawful under this chapter, or to a third party for further distribution, promotion, transfer, or license for use in a manner which is lawful under this chapter.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14
cases (10 in the last 5 years), 2010–2025 · leading case: Aronson v. Dog Eat Dog Films, Inc., 738 F. Supp. 2d 1104 (W.D. Wash. 2010).
Aronson v. Dog Eat Dog Films, Inc., 738 F. Supp. 2d 1104 (W.D. Wash. 2010). “Washington Anti-SLAPP Act § 2(4)(c). *1113 First Amendment and Right of Publicity Claims Defendant contends that Plaintiffs right of publicity claims (misappropriation of likeness and invasion of privacy) are barred by the First Amendment and RCW 63.”
Experience Hendrix, L.L.C v. HendrixLicensing.com, Ltd., 766 F. Supp. 2d 1122 (W.D. Wash. 2011). “See RCW 63.60.070. If the WPRA applies, however, none of these statutory exemptions would insulate defendants from liability.”
Alberghetti v. Corbis Corp., 263 F.R.D. 571 (C.D. Cal. 2010). “) See Wash. Rev.Code § 63.60.070(7) ("This chapter does not apply to the distribution, promotion, transfer, or license of a photograph or other material containing an individual’s or personality’s name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness to a third party for use in a…”
LaRock v. ZoomInfo Tech. LLC (W.D. Wash. 2025). “§ 63.60.070. Relevant here are the WPRA’s 6 exemptions for uses that are “merely descriptive and used fairly and in good faith only to identify 7 or describe something other than the individual or personality” and uses that are “insignificant, de 8 minimis, or incidental.”
Carrera v. Whitepages Inc (W.D. Wash. 2025). “” RCW 63.60.070(3). Although 5 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 allows class actions, Whitepages asserts that this rule does 6 not displace the WPRA’s class action bar under Justice Stevens’s concurrence in Shady Grove 7 Orthopedic Assocs.”
Al-Bustani v. Alger (W.D. Wash. 2022). “” RCW 63.60.070(1). The statute also exempts 19 unauthorized use of a name during a radio program “when the use does not inaccurately 20 claim or state an endorsement by the individual or personality.”
Gray v. Amazon.com Inc (W.D. Wash. 2023). “22 23 24 13 Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ claim is barred by RCW § 63.60.070(3), which disallows plaintiffs from pursuing 25 PRA claims as a class action.”
Enter. Mgmt. Ltd. Inc v. Construx Software Builders Inc (W.D. Wash. 2020). “” RCW § 63.60.070(2)(b). 11 In the FAC, Plaintiffs allege Defendants knowingly used Plaintiff Lippitt’s name in their 12 YouTube video without her permission and in bad faith.”
Panda Paws Rescue v. Walters (W.D. Wash. 2021). “at 23-24 (quoting RCW 63.60.070(2)(b).) Second, he 17 argues that any appearance of Ms.”
Al-Bustani v. Alger (W.D. Wash. 2022). “” RCW 63.60.070(1). It also 20 exempts unauthorized use of a name during a radio program “when the use does not 21 inaccurately claim or state an endorsement by the individual or personality.”
Al-Bustani v. Alger (W.D. Wash. 2023). “” RCW 63.60.070(1). 19 This court has twice determined that Ms.”
LaRock v. ZoomInfo Tech. LLC (W.D. Wash. 2025). “In another section, the 15 WPRA lists exemptions “[w]hen the chapter does not apply” that includes a section stating: 16 It is no defense to an infringement action under this chapter that the use of an individual’s or personality’s name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 63.60.070(1) — 4 cases
Experience Hendrix, L.L.C v. HendrixLicensing.com, Ltd., 766 F. Supp. 2d 1122 (W.D. Wash. 2011). “See RCW 63.60.070. If the WPRA applies, however, none of these statutory exemptions would insulate defendants from liability.”
Al-Bustani v. Alger (W.D. Wash. 2022). “” RCW 63.60.070(1). It also 20 exempts unauthorized use of a name during a radio program “when the use does not 21 inaccurately claim or state an endorsement by the individual or personality.”
Al-Bustani v. Alger (W.D. Wash. 2022). “” RCW 63.60.070(1). The statute also exempts 19 unauthorized use of a name during a radio program “when the use does not inaccurately 20 claim or state an endorsement by the individual or personality.”
Al-Bustani v. Alger (W.D. Wash. 2023). “” RCW 63.60.070(1). 19 This court has twice determined that Ms.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 63.60.070(2)(a) — 1 case
Experience Hendrix, L.L.C v. HendrixLicensing.com, Ltd., 766 F. Supp. 2d 1122 (W.D. Wash. 2011). “See RCW 63.60.070. If the WPRA applies, however, none of these statutory exemptions would insulate defendants from liability.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 63.60.070(2)(b) — 4 cases
Aronson v. Dog Eat Dog Films, Inc., 738 F. Supp. 2d 1104 (W.D. Wash. 2010). “Washington Anti-SLAPP Act § 2(4)(c). *1113 First Amendment and Right of Publicity Claims Defendant contends that Plaintiffs right of publicity claims (misappropriation of likeness and invasion of privacy) are barred by the First Amendment and RCW 63.”
Enter. Mgmt. Ltd. Inc v. Construx Software Builders Inc (W.D. Wash. 2020). “” RCW § 63.60.070(2)(b). 11 In the FAC, Plaintiffs allege Defendants knowingly used Plaintiff Lippitt’s name in their 12 YouTube video without her permission and in bad faith.”
Al-Bustani v. Alger (W.D. Wash. 2022). “” RCW 63.60.070(1). The statute also exempts 19 unauthorized use of a name during a radio program “when the use does not inaccurately 20 claim or state an endorsement by the individual or personality.”
Panda Paws Rescue v. Walters (W.D. Wash. 2021). “at 23-24 (quoting RCW 63.60.070(2)(b).) Second, he 17 argues that any appearance of Ms.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 63.60.070(3) — 4 cases
Gray v. Amazon.com Inc (W.D. Wash. 2023). “22 23 24 13 Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ claim is barred by RCW § 63.60.070(3), which disallows plaintiffs from pursuing 25 PRA claims as a class action.”
Carrera v. Whitepages Inc (W.D. Wash. 2025). “” RCW 63.60.070(3). Although 5 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 allows class actions, Whitepages asserts that this rule does 6 not displace the WPRA’s class action bar under Justice Stevens’s concurrence in Shady Grove 7 Orthopedic Assocs.”
LaRock v. ZoomInfo Tech. LLC (W.D. Wash. 2025). “§ 63.60.070. Relevant here are the WPRA’s 6 exemptions for uses that are “merely descriptive and used fairly and in good faith only to identify 7 or describe something other than the individual or personality” and uses that are “insignificant, de 8 minimis, or incidental.”
LaRock v. ZoomInfo Tech. LLC (W.D. Wash. 2025). “In another section, the 15 WPRA lists exemptions “[w]hen the chapter does not apply” that includes a section stating: 16 It is no defense to an infringement action under this chapter that the use of an individual’s or personality’s name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 63.60.070(5) — 3 cases
Carrera v. Whitepages Inc (W.D. Wash. 2025). “” RCW 63.60.070(3). Although 5 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 allows class actions, Whitepages asserts that this rule does 6 not displace the WPRA’s class action bar under Justice Stevens’s concurrence in Shady Grove 7 Orthopedic Assocs.”
LaRock v. ZoomInfo Tech. LLC (W.D. Wash. 2025). “§ 63.60.070. Relevant here are the WPRA’s 6 exemptions for uses that are “merely descriptive and used fairly and in good faith only to identify 7 or describe something other than the individual or personality” and uses that are “insignificant, de 8 minimis, or incidental.”
Sant v. RocketReach LLC (W.D. Wash. 2025).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 63.60.070(6) — 3 cases
Panda Paws Rescue v. Walters (W.D. Wash. 2021). “at 23-24 (quoting RCW 63.60.070(2)(b).) Second, he 17 argues that any appearance of Ms.”
Johnson v. Amazon.com Inc (W.D. Wash. 2025).
LaRock v. ZoomInfo Tech. LLC (W.D. Wash. 2025). “§ 63.60.070. Relevant here are the WPRA’s 6 exemptions for uses that are “merely descriptive and used fairly and in good faith only to identify 7 or describe something other than the individual or personality” and uses that are “insignificant, de 8 minimis, or incidental.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 63.60.070(7) — 1 case
Alberghetti v. Corbis Corp., 263 F.R.D. 571 (C.D. Cal. 2010). “) See Wash. Rev.Code § 63.60.070(7) ("This chapter does not apply to the distribution, promotion, transfer, or license of a photograph or other material containing an individual’s or personality’s name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness to a third party for use in a…”
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.