CIV § 3344

$750 minimum damages for commercial use: CIV § 3344

Under CA Civil Code 3344, unauthorized commercial use of a name, voice, photo, or likeness yields damages of at least $750, profits, and attorney's fees.

Official text CIV § 3344 — California
  • (a) (1) Any person who knowingly uses another’s name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness, in any manner, on or in products, merchandise, or goods, or for purposes of advertising or selling, or soliciting purchases of, products, merchandise, goods, or services, without that person’s prior consent, or, in the case of a minor, the prior consent of their parent or legal guardian, shall be liable for any damages sustained by the person or persons injured as a result thereof. In addition, in any action brought under this section, the person who violated the section shall be liable to the injured party or parties in an amount equal to the greater of seven hundred fifty dollars ($750) or the actual damages suffered by them as a result of the unauthorized use, and any profits from the unauthorized use that are attributable to the use and are not taken into account in computing the actual damages. In establishing these profits, the injured party or parties are required to present proof only of the gross revenue attributable to the unauthorized use, and the person who violated this section is required to prove their deductible expenses. Punitive damages may also be awarded to the injured party or parties. The prevailing party in any action under this section shall also be entitled to attorney’s fees and costs.
  • (2) In addition to the remedies available in paragraph (1), a party may seek an injunction or temporary restraining order pursuant to Section 527 of the Code of Civil Procedure. If the court grants the applicant an order under subdivision (c) of Section 527 of the Code of Civil Procedure that requires the respondent to remove, recall, or otherwise cease the publication or distribution of the petitioner’s name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness, the respondent shall complete the removal or recall, or cease the publication or distribution, within two business days from the day the order is served, unless otherwise required by the order.
  • (b) As used in this section, “photograph” means any photograph or photographic reproduction, still or moving, or any videotape or live television transmission, of any person, such that the person is readily identifiable.
  • (1) A person shall be deemed to be readily identifiable from a photograph when one who views the photograph with the naked eye can reasonably determine that the person depicted in the photograph is the same person who is complaining of its unauthorized use.
  • (2) If the photograph includes more than one person so identifiable, then the person or persons complaining of the use shall be represented as individuals rather than solely as members of a definable group represented in the photograph. A definable group includes, but is not limited to, the following examples: a crowd at any sporting event, a crowd in any street or public building, the audience at any theatrical or stage production, a glee club, or a baseball team.
  • (3) A person or persons shall be considered to be represented as members of a definable group if they are represented in the photograph solely as a result of being present at the time the photograph was taken and have not been singled out as individuals in any manner.
  • (c) Where a photograph or likeness of an employee of the person using the photograph or likeness appearing in the advertisement or other publication prepared by or in behalf of the user is only incidental, and not essential, to the purpose of the publication in which it appears, there shall arise a rebuttable presumption affecting the burden of producing evidence that the failure to obtain the consent of the employee was not a knowing use of the employee’s photograph or likeness.
  • (d) For purposes of this section, a use of a name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness in connection with any news, public affairs, or sports broadcast or account, or any political campaign, shall not constitute a use for which consent is required under subdivision (a).
  • (e) The use of a name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness in a commercial medium shall not constitute a use for which consent is required under subdivision (a) solely because the material containing the use is commercially sponsored or contains paid advertising. Rather it shall be a question of fact whether or not the use of the person’s name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness was so directly connected with the commercial sponsorship or with the paid advertising as to constitute a use for which consent is required under subdivision (a).
  • (f) Nothing in this section shall apply to the owners or employees of any medium used for advertising, including, but not limited to, newspapers, magazines, radio and television networks and stations, cable television systems, billboards, and transit ads, by whom any advertisement or solicitation in violation of this section is published or disseminated, unless it is established that those owners or employees had knowledge of the unauthorized use of the person’s name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness as prohibited by this section.
  • (g) The remedies provided for in this section are cumulative and shall be in addition to any others provided for by law.

Text as published in the 2026 snapshot of the code.

Source: Vaquill Open US Law, compiled from official state publishers (huggingface.co), reproduced under license CC BY 4.0.

Read this provision at the official source →

What it actually says

Section 3344 gives a person control over the commercial use of their identity. Subdivision (a)(1) makes anyone who knowingly uses another's name, voice, signature, photograph or likeness, in any manner, on or in products, merchandise or goods, or for purposes of advertising or selling or soliciting purchases of products, merchandise, goods or services, without that person's prior consent — or, for a minor, the consent of a parent or legal guardian — liable for any damages sustained.

The remedies are what make the section usable for an ordinary person rather than only a celebrity. The user is liable for the greater of $750 or the actual damages suffered, plus any profits attributable to the unauthorised use that are not already counted in the actual damages. On profits, the injured party need only prove the gross revenue attributable to the use; it is for the defendant to prove deductible expenses. Punitive damages may also be awarded, and the prevailing party is entitled to attorney's fees and costs. Subdivision (a)(2) allows an injunction or temporary restraining order, and where an order requires removal or recall, the respondent has two business days from service to comply unless the order says otherwise.

Subdivision (b) defines the identification requirement: a person is readily identifiable from a photograph when someone viewing it with the naked eye can reasonably determine that the person depicted is the one complaining. Where several identifiable people appear, the complainant must be represented as an individual rather than solely as part of a definable group. The section contains further limits for news, public affairs and sports accounts and for uses by the media. Whether a particular use is commercial rather than editorial, and what the profits attributable to it are, are the two questions these disputes turn on and are worth putting to a lawyer.

When it applies

  • A company uses your photograph in an advertisement without asking
  • A local business puts a customer's picture on its website or shopfront
  • Your name or image appears on packaging or merchandise
  • A testimonial attributed to you that you never gave
  • A photograph of your child used in promotional material
  • A former employer keeps using your image to market its services

What this section does not say

  • It does not cover news and editorial use. The section contains express limits for accounts of news, public affairs and sports events, which are treated differently from advertising.
  • It does not apply to a use nobody can trace to you. Subdivision (b) requires the person to be readily identifiable to someone viewing the material with the naked eye.
  • It is not a general privacy claim. The section is about use of identity in connection with products, merchandise, goods, services or advertising; being photographed in itself is dealt with by other provisions.
  • Accidental use is outside it. Subdivision (a)(1) requires that the person knowingly used the name, voice, signature, photograph or likeness.
  • It does not require you to be famous, and it does not guarantee a large award. The floor is $750 or actual damages, whichever is greater, plus attributable profits.

Worked examples

Invented situations, written to show how the wording bites. They are not real cases, not judgments and not precedent, and nothing here predicts what would happen in yours.

Illustrative example

A local business photographs a customer at an event and then uses the picture on its website and in printed advertising for a year, without ever asking.

How the wording applies

Section 3344 requires a knowing use of a person's photograph on or in products or advertising without prior consent, and gives the greater of actual damages or $750, plus any attributable profits and attorney's fees. It turns on identifiability under subdivision (b), meaning whether a viewer can recognise the person with the naked eye, and on whether consent was ever given for advertising as distinct from for the photograph being taken.

How the parties settled it

The business removes the image from every channel within a fixed period, confirms deletion of the files, and pays an agreed licence fee for the period it was used.

Illustrative example

After an employee leaves, the former employer keeps their photograph and name on the services page of its website, giving the impression they still work there.

How the wording applies

The use is in connection with services, which is within the section, and the fact that decides it is the withdrawal of consent: consent given while employed does not run past the point at which it was withdrawn in writing. Subdivision (a) requires the use to be knowing, and a written request to take it down removes any doubt about that.

How the parties settled it

The employer removes the name and image within an agreed number of days and pays a modest sum for the period after the written request, with the matter closed on removal.

How courts have read it

Decisions construing this provision. The question and the summary are ours; the quoted sentence is the court's own words, taken from the published opinion. These are the decisions in our corpus, not every decision there is, and nothing here predicts any other case. Reported 1991 to 2017.

Local TV, LLC v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 3 Cal. App. 5th 1 (2016)

Court of Appeal

What the court had to decide

Does the consent provision in the agreement between plaintiffs and KTLA bar plaintiffs' statutory claim under Civil Code section 3344 against LTV for unauthorized use of name and likeness?

What it held

The broad consent in the agreement precludes plaintiffs from proving lack of consent, which is an element of the statutory claim under Civil Code section 3344, and therefore the claim fails as a matter of law.

In the court's words
We hold that based on the broad consent in the agreement, plaintiffs cannot prove lack of consent to the manner in which LTV used the CyberGuy material.

Maxwell v. Dolezal, 231 Cal. App. 4th 93 (2014)

Court of Appeal

What the court had to decide

Did the plaintiff adequately allege lack of consent to state a cause of action under Civil Code section 3344?

What it held

The plaintiff failed to plead lack of consent because his allegations showed he authorized the defendant to use his identity, albeit possibly in violation of a contract with a third party.

In the court's words
Accordingly, Maxwell has failed to plead sufficient facts concerning lack of consent to state a cause of action for common law misappropriation of name or likeness or a statutory cause of action for invasion of the right of publicity under Civil Code section 3344.

Ross v. Roberts, 222 Cal. App. 4th 677 (2013)

Court of Appeal

What the court had to decide

Whether the defendant's use of the plaintiff's name and identity in creating a rap music persona and lyrics is protected by the First Amendment, barring liability under Civil Code § 3344.

What it held

The First Amendment provides a complete defense to the statutory right of publicity claim because the defendant's work contained significant transformative elements, and thus summary judgment was appropriate.

In the court's words
Applying the transformative test to the facts of this case, we find that the First Amendment provides a complete defense to all of plaintiff’s claims.

Stewart v. Rolling Stone LLC, 181 Cal. App. 4th 664 (2010)

Court of Appeal

What the court had to decide

What does a plaintiff need to prove to establish a violation of Civil Code section 3344 for unauthorized use of a name?

What it held

Under section 3344, a plaintiff must prove all the elements of the common law cause of action for commercial misappropriation, and additionally must allege a knowing use by the defendant as well as a direct connection between the alleged use and the commercial purpose.

In the court's words
Under section 3344, a plaintiff must prove all the elements of the common law cause of action. In addition, the plaintiff must allege a knowing use by the defendant as well as a direct connection between the alleged use and the commercial purpose.

Christoff v. Nestlé USA, Inc., 47 Cal. 4th 468 (2009)

Supreme Court of California

What the court had to decide

Does the single-publication rule codified in Civil Code section 3425.3 apply to a cause of action for unauthorized commercial use of likeness under Civil Code section 3344?

What it held

The single-publication rule applies generally to claims under Civil Code section 3344, but the case is remanded to determine whether Nestlé's specific use constituted a single integrated publication.

In the court's words
We agree with the Court of Appeal that the judgment must be reversed because the trial court erroneously ruled that the single-publication rule does not apply to claims for appropriation of likeness.

Miller v. Collectors Universe, Inc., 159 Cal. App. 4th 988 (2008)

Court of Appeal

What the court had to decide

Whether Civil Code section 3344(a) entitles a plaintiff to recover $750 in statutory damages for each unauthorized use of his name, or only a single $750 award for a single cause of action.

What it held

Under the facts shown, Miller had but a single cause of action for wrongful appropriation of his name, thereby limiting his statutory damages to $750.

In the court's words
We hold that under the facts shown by the evidence in this case, Miller had but a single cause of action for wrongful appropriation of his name, thereby limiting his statutory damages to $750.

Source: Caselaw Access Project, CC0 1.0 Universal (public domain dedication).

Related sections

CIV § 1708.85 California Civil Code § 1708.85 - Distributing intimate images without consent CIV § 1708 No contract needed: CIV § 1708 duty to not injure CIV § 3333 Full Compensation for All Detriment Caused | CIV § 3333

That's the law. Now let's settle your problem.

Say what is happening. A neutral mediator hears your side and the other party's, and walks you both to a written agreement. In the advanced settings you can ask for the decision to be reasoned on the California Codes.

This is with

Or open a session directly and invite the other party.

We copy this text from the official publisher and re-check it against that source on every page load, but we cannot guarantee it is complete, current or free of error, and we accept no liability for any reliance on it. An amendment can take effect before a consolidation catches up. The publisher's own copy is linked below; where the two differ, it is the official one that counts.

This page reproduces the text of CIV § 3344 in force at the date shown and explains it in general terms. It is not legal advice and takes no account of the circumstances of your case, which can change the answer completely. For a live dispute, for limitation periods, and before taking any step in court, consult a qualified lawyer in California.

← All California law pages