ntity by other means. See White, 971 F.2d at1398 ("[a] rule which says that the right of publicity can beinfringed only through the use of nine different methods ofappropriating identity merely challenges the clever advertis-ing strategist to come up with the tenth."); see also Abdul- 12359Jabbar v. General Motors Corp., 85 F.3d 407, 415 (9th Cir.1996) (common law right protects identity, which is moreflexible than the statutory `laundry list' of particular means ofappropriation); Midler v. Ford Motor Co., 849 F.2d 460, 463-64 (9th Cir. 1988) (concluding that there was a claim for vio-lation under common law right of publicity, but not Cal. Civ.Code S 3344, for use of sound-alike singer in advertisement);Motschenbacher v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 498 F.2d 821,827 (9th Cir. 1974) (concluding that there was a common-lawclaim from use of an identifiable race car in an advertisement,even though name or likeness of famous driver was not visi-ble).Appellees argue that the figures appropriate only the identi-ties of the characters Norm and Cliff, to which Paramountowns the copyrights, and not the identities of Wendt and Rat-zenberger, who merely portrayed those characters on telev-sion and retain no licensing rights to them. They argue thatappellants may not claim an appropriation of identity by rely-ing upon indicia, such as the Cheers Bar set, that are the prop-erty of, or licensee of, a copyright owner. Sinatra v. GoodyearTire & Rubber Co., 435 F.2d 711, 716 (9th Cir. 1970).Appellants freely concede that they retain no rights to thecharacters Norm and Cliff; they argue that the figures, named"Bob" and "Hank," are not related to Paramount's copyrightof the creative elements of the characters Norm and Cliff.They argue that it is the physical likeness to Wendt and Rat-zenberger, not Paramount's characters, that has commercialvalue to Host.[6] While it is true that appellants' fame arose in large partthrough thei...
