Right of Publicity in California

Your face showed up in an ad you never approved. Your name is selling a product you’ve never used. In California, the right of publicity gives you legal tools to stop it and collect damages. This right exists both in statute and common law, and it protects everyone from A-list actors to small business owners who find their identity exploited without permission.

I’m Evan Dotta, a partner at Mister Wolf P.C. I handle right of publicity and intellectual property disputes for clients across California, many of them in the entertainment industry. The unauthorized use of someone’s name, image, or voice has always been a problem in this state. AI-generated deepfakes, voice clones, and paid social ads have made the proof problems harder and the commercial harm faster. Let me walk you through the law, recent changes, and what you can actually do about it.

What Is the Right of Publicity Under California Law?

The Statutory Right

California Civil Code Section 3344 is the primary statute. It prohibits the knowing use of another person’s name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness for advertising, selling, or soliciting purposes without prior consent. The law has been on the books since 1971, and it applies to any person, not just celebrities.

To win a claim under Section 3344, you need to prove five elements:

The defendant used your name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness
The use was for commercial purposes (advertising, selling, or soliciting)
The defendant did so knowingly
You did not consent to the use
You suffered injury as a result

The statute sets a floor for damages. Even if you can’t prove actual monetary losses, you’re entitled to a minimum of $750 in statutory damages per unauthorized use. That number is a starting point. Actual damages, the infringer’s profits attributable to the use, punitive damages, attorney’s fees, and injunctive relief can push recovery far higher.

The Common Law Right

California also recognizes a common law right of publicity developed through case law. The landmark case is Eastwood v. Superior Court (1983), where Clint Eastwood sued the National Enquirer for using his name and likeness in an advertisement disguised as an article. The California Court of Appeal confirmed that the common law right protects against the unauthorized commercial appropriation of a person’s identity.

The common law right reaches further than Section 3344. It can cover aspects of identity beyond the specific categories in the statute. Voice imitations, catchphrases, distinctive mannerisms, and other recognizable attributes can all be actionable, even if they don’t fit neatly into the statutory language.

If someone is using your image or name commercially without permission, screenshot everything immediately. Capture the ad, the social media post, the website, and the URL with timestamps. This evidence can disappear fast once the infringer realizes they’ve been caught.

Does the Right of Publicity Survive Death in California?

Protecting deceased celebrities

California Civil Code Section 3344.1 extends the right of publicity to deceased personalities for 70 years after death. In Los Angeles, where estates license film clips, music catalogs, archival photographs, merchandise, and hologram-style performances, this protection is especially important.

Section 3344.1 applies to anyone whose name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness had commercial value at the time of death. The right is freely transferable, meaning estates can license it, sell it, or enforce it. The estate of Marilyn Monroe, the estate of Prince, and the trust managing Michael Jackson’s likeness all operate under these kinds of protections (with some variations across state lines).

The 70-year post-mortem term makes California’s protections among the longest in the country. Indiana provides 100 years. Most states that recognize the post-mortem right of publicity cap it at 50 years or less.

One practical issue: who owns the post-mortem right? Under Section 3344.1(b), the right passes to the person or persons specified in the deceased personality’s will or trust. If the will doesn’t address it, the right passes through intestate succession. Disputes over ownership are common, particularly when a celebrity dies without clear estate planning.

How Does the First Amendment Limit Publicity Claims?

The Transformative Use Test

The First Amendment creates a significant defense. Not every use of someone’s name or likeness is actionable. News reporting, commentary, criticism, satire, and artistic expression all have constitutional protection. The question is where commercial exploitation ends and protected speech begins.

The California Supreme Court addressed this directly in Comedy III Productions, Inc. v. Gary Saderup, Inc. (2001). An artist sold t-shirts and prints featuring charcoal drawings of the Three Stooges. The Stooges’ estate sued. The court developed the “transformative use test”: does the work add significant creative elements that transform the celebrity’s likeness into something more than a mere likeness?

If the work is primarily the defendant’s own expression (meaning the celebrity’s identity is just raw material that has been transformed into something new), the First Amendment protects it. If the work is essentially a conventional portrait or depiction used to sell a product, it’s not transformative enough.

Courts in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California and the Ninth Circuit have applied this test repeatedly. The results are sometimes unpredictable. A painting of Tiger Woods at the Masters was held to be transformative. A literal depiction of the college football players in EA Sports’ NCAA Football video game was not.

The practical lesson: transformation matters. Simply adding a filter or putting someone’s face in a different setting probably won’t qualify. Genuine creative reworking that comments on, criticizes, or reimagines the person’s identity probably will.

Unauthorized endorsements

Social media has created new categories of violations. The most common scenario I see: a brand takes a photo from Instagram or another platform and uses it in advertising without permission. Sometimes they imply an endorsement. Sometimes they use the image as a “before and after” comparison. Both are potentially actionable under Section 3344.

A client came to us after discovering that a supplement company had taken her gym selfies from Instagram and used them in paid Facebook ads as a “transformation” testimonial. She had never purchased the supplements. She had never agreed to any endorsement. The company had simply right-clicked her images and dropped them into ad creative. We sent a demand letter citing Section 3344 and the company’s own profits from the campaign. They settled within 60 days.

Influencer-to-influencer misuse is also growing. One creator uses another creator’s likeness or catchphrase to promote a competing product. Platforms like Instagram and TikTok have internal IP reporting tools, but those processes are slow and limited to taking down specific posts. They don’t compensate you for the unauthorized use that already happened.

Hashtag and handle impersonation

Using someone’s trademarked name or stage name as a social media handle, hashtag campaign, or SEO keyword for commercial purposes can trigger right of publicity claims. This overlaps with trademark law (specifically the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1125(a)), but the right of publicity claim stands on its own when someone is exploiting a person’s identity rather than a brand name.

Set up Google Alerts for your name and any stage names or brand names you use commercially. Search your name on Instagram, TikTok, and Facebook ad libraries monthly. Early detection gives you more options.

How Do AI Deepfakes Threaten Your Right of Publicity?

California’s 2024 AI legislation

AI has made it easy to generate fake images, videos, and audio of real people. A few seconds of voice recording can produce a synthetic clone. A handful of photos can generate a video of someone saying or doing things they never did. California recognized this threat and acted in 2024. Those ownership questions require a separate intellectual property analysis, particularly when a business relies on AI-generated marketing or creative assets.

AB 2602 added Labor Code Section 927, which addresses AI-generated digital replicas in personal or professional services contracts. A provision allowing the creation and use of a digital replica of someone’s voice or likeness in place of work they otherwise would have performed can be unenforceable if the intended uses aren’t reasonably specific and the person wasn’t represented by legal counsel or a labor union in negotiating that term. The law prevents studios, labels, agencies, and platforms from burying broad AI rights in boilerplate agreements.

AB 1836 amended Civil Code Section 3344.1 effective January 1, 2025, to specifically cover digital replicas of deceased personalities. The statute now creates liability for producing, distributing, or making available a deceased personality’s digital replica in an expressive audiovisual work or sound recording without consent from the rights holder, subject to exceptions for news, public affairs, sports, commentary, criticism, scholarship, satire, parody, historical or biographical uses, and fleeting or incidental uses.

Together, these two laws represent California’s first direct legislative response to AI-generated identity theft in entertainment and digital media. The federal gap remains open. Congress introduced the NO FAKES Act of 2025 to create a national right against unauthorized digital replicas, but as of May 2026 that proposal had not become federal law.

The federal gap

No federal right of publicity statute exists. Federal law addresses some aspects of the problem through the Lanham Act’s false endorsement provision (15 U.S.C. Section 1125(a)) and, in some cases, through copyright law. But federal protections are incomplete. California’s statutory and common law framework covers conduct within the state, and because so much of the entertainment and technology industry operates here, California law often applies even when the unauthorized use originates elsewhere.

The FTC reported that consumers lost more than $12.5 billion to fraud in 2024, with imposter scams accounting for $2.95 billion of that reported loss. The FTC has also warned that voice cloning and other AI tools can make impersonation fraud easier to scale. That consumer fraud data isn’t the same as right of publicity litigation, but it tracks the practical risk: synthetic identity misuse is no longer theoretical.

What Damages Can You Recover in a Right of Publicity Case?

Statutory and actual damages

Under Civil Code Section 3344, you can recover:

Actual damages from the unauthorized use. This includes lost licensing fees (what you would have charged for the endorsement), lost business opportunities, and emotional distress in some cases.
Profits attributable to the unauthorized use. You’re entitled to the portion of the defendant’s revenue that resulted from using your identity. The defendant must prove which profits, if any, are not attributable to your identity.
Statutory damages of at least $750 per violation if actual damages and profits are difficult to prove.
Punitive damages in cases of willful or malicious conduct.
Attorney’s fees and costs under Section 3344(a).

In the Central District of California, damage awards in right of publicity cases have ranged from the $750 statutory minimum in small cases to multi-million dollar verdicts where a celebrity’s likeness was used extensively. The range depends on the commercial value of the person’s identity, the scope of the unauthorized use, and whether the defendant acted willfully.

Injunctive relief

Beyond money damages, you can seek an injunction ordering the defendant to stop using your identity. In cases of ongoing advertising campaigns or social media accounts, injunctive relief is often more valuable than damages because it stops the violation. California courts regularly grant preliminary injunctions in right of publicity cases where the plaintiff can show likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm.

What Should You Do If Someone Is Using Your Identity Without Permission?

Steps to take now

The right of publicity in California is strong, but worthless if you don’t enforce it. The statute of limitations under Section 3344 is two years from the date you discover the unauthorized use (or reasonably should have discovered it). Under common law, the same two-year clock applies via Code of Civil Procedure Section 339.

Document everything. Take screenshots, note URLs and dates, and record the context. If the use is in a video, download a copy. If it’s a social media ad, capture the targeting data and engagement metrics visible.

Determine who is responsible. The person or company that created the content, the platform hosting it, and anyone paying for the promotion can all be liable. Follow the money.

Send a cease-and-desist letter. A lawyer’s letter citing Section 3344 and identifying the unauthorized use often produces fast results. Many companies comply because fighting the claim costs more than the ad campaign is worth.

File a platform complaint. Instagram, YouTube, TikTok, and Facebook all have reporting mechanisms. Platform takedowns are faster than court orders, but they don’t compensate you for the violation.

Consider litigation. If the unauthorized use was profitable, willful, or ongoing, a lawsuit in the Central District of California or Los Angeles County Superior Court may be the best option. You can recover actual damages, the infringer’s profits, statutory damages, and attorney’s fees.

At Mister Wolf P.C., we handle right of publicity cases from initial investigation through trial. The entertainment industry in Los Angeles generates a constant stream of these disputes, and our Los Angeles intellectual property lawyers handle them regularly. AI-generated content has accelerated the pace.

If you’ve discovered that someone is using your name, face, or voice without permission, don’t wait for the statute of limitations to shrink your options. Pull together your evidence, identify the source, and talk to an intellectual property attorney who has handled these claims in California courts.

Right of Publicity in California: Protecting Your Name and Likeness