California's right of publicity protects people—not only celebrities—from certain unauthorized commercial uses of their identity. A viable claim generally requires more than simply appearing in content: the use, consent, commercial connection, identifiability, knowledge, injury, and available exceptions must be evaluated under the applicable statutory or common-law test.
Civil Code section 3344 applies when a person knowingly uses another's name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness in specified advertising or sales contexts without prior consent. The statute defines an identifiable photograph, supplies remedies, and identifies protected contexts and limitations.
California common law separately protects against the unauthorized appropriation of a person's identity for another's advantage. The statutory and common-law theories overlap but are not identical. Pleading and proof should identify which theory applies rather than treating 'right of publicity' as one universal rule.
The subject of a photograph may have a publicity-right claim even when the photographer owns the copyright. Conversely, a photographer may have a copyright claim even when the person depicted cannot establish a publicity-right claim. A release from the model does not necessarily transfer the photographer's copyright, and a copyright license does not necessarily supply the subject's publicity consent. Sophisticated case analysis asks who owns which right and what each agreement authorized.
The distinction is not simply 'commercial website equals commercial use.' California law expressly states that a use in a commercial medium does not require consent solely because the medium is sponsored or contains advertising. Courts examine whether the identity was directly connected to advertising or commercial sponsorship and whether constitutional or statutory protections apply. A product advertisement and a news report about the same person may receive very different treatment.
Civil Code section 3344 currently provides for the greater of $750 or actual damages, certain profits attributable to the unauthorized use, and potential punitive damages. It also provides for attorney's fees and costs to the prevailing party and permits injunctive relief in appropriate circumstances. Common-law and federal theories have different elements and remedies. A damages analysis should connect the requested recovery to evidence rather than use a generic multiplier or promise.
Publicity, privacy, contract, copyright, and federal false-endorsement claims can have different filing periods and accrual rules. Repeated posts or continuing availability do not automatically restart every deadline. Preserve the first-known publication date, later reposts, paid-campaign periods, and the date of discovery, then obtain claim-specific advice promptly.
No. California's statutory text applies to 'any person.' Fame may affect commercial value and damages evidence, but it is not the threshold for every claim.
No. Consent, identifiability, purpose, commercial connection, copyright ownership, statutory exceptions, and constitutional protections all matter.
Potential responsibility depends on who selected, approved, published, distributed, or knowingly continued the use. Contracts between companies do not automatically eliminate a claimant's rights.
Not automatically. The statute addresses profits attributable to the unauthorized use, and the parties carry different evidentiary burdens. Causation and apportionment remain important.
No. Limitations and accrual questions are fact-specific, and an old post's continued availability is not a universal reset. Seek advice promptly.