t court acknowledgedthat it simply found a fact-specific exception to the generalrule that "as a general proposition section 3344 is intended toprotect rights which cannot be copyrighted." Fleet, 58 Cal.Rptr. 2d at 649.Appellants' claims are not preempted by federal copyrightlaw. Issues of material fact exist concerning the degree towhich the robots are like the appellants. We reverse the grant 12358of summary judgment on the claim under Cal. Civ. CodeS 3344.B. Common-Law Right of Publicity[4] California recognizes a common law right of privacythat includes protection against appropriation for the defen-dant's advantage of the plaintiff's name or likeness. Eastwoodv. Super. Ct. for Los Angeles County, 198 Cal. Rptr. 342, 347(Cal. Ct. App. 1983). The right to be protected against suchappropriations is also referred to as the "right of publicity."Id. A common law cause of action for appropriation of nameor likeness may be pleaded by alleging 1) the defendant's useof the plaintiff's identity; 2) the appropriation of plaintiff'sname or likeness to defendant's advantage, commercially orotherwise; 3) lack of consent; and 4) resulting injury. Id.(citing Prosser, Law of Torts S 117 804-07 (4th ed. 1971)). The so-called right of publicity means in essence that the reaction of the public to name and likeness, which may be fortuitous or which may be managed and planned, endows the name and likeness of the person involved with commercially exploitable opportunities. The protection of name and likeness from unwarranted intrusion or exploitation is the heart of the law of privacy.Lugosi v. Universal Pictures, 603 P.2d 425, 431 (1979).[5] We have held that this common-law right of publicityprotects more than the knowing use of a plaintiff's name orlikeness for commercial purposes that is protected by Cal.Civ. Code S 3344. It also protects against appropriations ofthe plaintiff's ide...
