Clearing Expressive Works Against Right of Publicity Claims: A Practical Guide

Summary. This guide walks producers, publishers, game studios, brands, and their lawyers through clearing an expressive work that uses a real person's name, likeness, voice, or story, and shows the people depicted how to respond. It is organized as ten chronological steps: inventory the people and the uses, fix the governing law, run the publicity analysis use by use, review for defamation and privacy, decide whether to buy life rights or releases, apply the rules for each medium, review titles and marketing, choose disclaimers that actually help, assemble the clearance file for errors and omissions insurance, and handle objections and demand letters. Each step explains the decision points, the documents to create, and what the work typically costs and how long it takes, with the leading authority from Zacchini and Comedy III through de Havilland, Jordan v. Jewel, and Hepp v. Facebook. A separate playbook covers the subject's side, from first notice of a project to a pre-release demand and the claims worth bringing. A costs and timelines table follows, and a worked example clears a documentary-drama hybrid about two surfers, one living and one deceased, with archival footage, an AI-recreated narration, a podcast companion, and merchandise. The guide closes with common mistakes, an FAQ, and practical takeaways.

The distributor's delivery schedule runs forty pages, and item 31 reads: "Errors and omissions certificate; clearance procedures completed; annotated script for all scenes depicting actual persons; releases or counsel's written determination for each." The producer has three weeks, a cut that names nineteen real people, a trailer that calls the film "the untold true story," and a merchandise partner printing T-shirts with the lead subject's face on them. Nothing on that list is exotic, and almost all of it can be done in three weeks, if you know which questions actually matter.

The short answer

You almost never need anyone's permission to tell a true story, write a novel, make a documentary, paint a portrait, or build a game world that includes real people. The First Amendment protects expressive works about real people, and every state's right of publicity is limited to commercial exploitation of identity, with express or judge-made exemptions for news, commentary, fiction, biography, and art. What you do need is a disciplined process, because clearance failures happen in four predictable places:

1. The marketing, not the work. Posters, trailers, app store pages, sponsor tie-ins, and social posts are advertising, and advertising that uses a real person without consent is the core of the tort.
2. The merchandise. A realistic likeness on a T-shirt, mug, figurine, or trading card is a product, and products get far less protection than films and books.
3. Realistic depictions that are the product's selling point, especially avatars of athletes and performers doing what made them famous, which the transformative use cases have repeatedly held unprotected.
4. False factual scenes. Defamation and false light, not the right of publicity, are the real exposure in docudramas and biopics, and they are decided scene by scene.

A clean clearance file (an inventory of every real person, an annotated script or manuscript, a written legal determination for each depiction, the releases you chose to obtain, and a reviewed marketing plan) is what the errors and omissions underwriter wants, what a distributor's counsel will ask for, and what wins the anti-SLAPP motion if someone sues anyway. The doctrine behind all of this is explained in The Right of Publicity and the First Amendment: Transformative Use, Newsworthiness, and the Limits of Owning a Persona. This guide is the procedure.

The legal framework on one page

Clearance counsel are screening for six bodies of law at once. Keep them separate in your head, because each has different defenses.

Three Supreme Court decisions frame the whole exercise. Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co., 433 U.S. 562 (1977), holds that the First Amendment does not license broadcasting a performer's entire act, so taking a whole performance is different from depicting a person. Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 343 U.S. 495 (1952), and Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, 564 U.S. 786 (2011), hold that films and video games are protected speech even though they are sold for profit. And Bolger v. Youngs Drug Products Corp., 463 U.S. 60 (1983), supplies the factors (advertising format, reference to a product, economic motive) that separate commercial speech, which gets much less protection, from everything else.

Step 1: Inventory every real person and every use

When: at the script, manuscript, or design-document stage, and again at picture lock or content lock. Who: a producer or project manager builds the list; clearance counsel reviews it. Time: a day or two for a feature; longer for a game with many likenesses.

Start with a spreadsheet, because everything else in this guide keys off it. One row per real person who is named, shown, voiced, or identifiable, including people who appear only in archival footage, background crowds, photographs on a set wall, or a single line of dialogue. For each row, record:

• Identity cues used: name, nickname, photograph, footage, voice (real or imitated), signature, distinctive look, catchphrase, number, biography. Courts find identity in far more than a name; see White v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., 971 F.2d 1395 (9th Cir. 1992) (a robot in a wig turning letters), and Carson v. Here's Johnny Portable Toilets, Inc., 698 F.2d 831 (6th Cir. 1983) (a catchphrase).
• Status: living or deceased (with date and state or country of domicile at death); public figure, limited-purpose public figure, or private person; minor or adult.
• Every use, classified. This is the most important column. Use one of five labels: (1) in the work (the film, book, episode, game, song, artwork); (2) advertising for the work (trailer, key art, cover, store page, press kit); (3) merchandise (anything sold that is not the work); (4) brand integration or sponsorship (a third party's product promoted alongside the person); (5) archival or third-party material (footage, photos, recordings owned by someone else).
• Portrayal type: factual, dramatized, composite, fictional character inspired by the person, parody, or passing reference.
• Sensitive content: crime, sex, health, finances, family conflict, anything a reasonable person would find highly offensive if false.

The classification column does most of the legal work, because the doctrine sorts uses, not people. The same person can be safely depicted in the film and actionably used on the T-shirt. Expect the inventory to surprise you: most first drafts miss the people in archival clips and the people mentioned only in marketing copy.

Step 2: Fix the governing law and the worst plausible forum

When: right after the inventory. Who: clearance counsel. Time: hours, unless a postmortem right turns on a disputed domicile.

Publicity law is state law, and the states disagree about almost everything: whether a common-law right exists, whether it survives death and for how long, which uses are exempt, and which First Amendment test applies. A nationally distributed work can usually be sued on wherever it is distributed, subject to the limits of personal jurisdiction, so the safe method is to clear the work under the least protective law that a plausible plaintiff could invoke. For living people, courts usually look to the law of the plaintiff's domicile or the place of the injury; for the dead, they look almost uniformly to domicile at death (1 J. Thomas McCarthy & Roger E. Schechter, The Rights of Publicity and Privacy §§ 11:11 to 11:15 (2d ed.)). That rule is why a Marilyn Monroe licensing company lost its California claims in Milton H. Greene Archives, Inc. v. Marilyn Monroe LLC, 692 F.3d 983 (9th Cir. 2012), and Princess Diana's estate lost under English law in Cairns v. Franklin Mint Co., 292 F.3d 1139 (9th Cir. 2002). Indiana and Washington are exceptions: their statutes reach uses within the state regardless of where the person lived, and the Ninth Circuit largely upheld Washington's approach in Experience Hendrix L.L.C. v. HendrixLicensing.com Ltd., 762 F.3d 829 (9th Cir. 2014).

For deceased subjects, record the answer in the inventory using this short table:

The answer to "which forum?" also drives litigation strategy. If you expect to be sued in California, the anti-SLAPP statute (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16) will be your first motion. If you expect to be sued in a federal court in the Second, Fifth, Tenth, Eleventh, or D.C. Circuits, it will not be available there; see La Liberte v. Reid, 966 F.3d 79 (2d Cir. 2020). For jurisdiction over online distribution, see Personal Jurisdiction Over Online and Foreign Defendants: From Zippo to Ford Motor.

Step 3: Run the publicity analysis, use by use

When: with the script or design document, before money is spent on any likeness-dependent element. Who: clearance counsel, with the creative lead available to explain choices. Time: a few hours per depiction for routine cases; a written memo for any depiction you would describe as the product's selling point.

Work down the inventory and answer the questions in order. Stop when you reach a clear answer.

1. Does a statutory exemption cover the use? California's § 3344(d) excludes uses "in connection with any news, public affairs, or sports broadcast or account, or any political campaign." The deceased-personality statute, § 3344.1(a)(2), excludes plays, books, magazines, newspapers, musical compositions, audiovisual works, radio and television programs, single and original works of art, works of political or newsworthy value, and advertisements for them. Indiana, Illinois, and Washington have similar lists; Tennessee's § 47-25-1107 deems news, commentary, criticism, satire, parody, and fleeting or incidental uses "fair use" to the extent the First Amendment protects them. New York's statute reaches only "advertising" and "trade," which its courts read narrowly. If an exemption plainly applies, document it and move on.

2. Is the use in the work itself, and what kind of work is it? For films, series, books, podcasts, plays, songs, and documentaries that tell a story about or comment on the person, the answer is almost always protection, under cases such as Sarver v. Chartier, 813 F.3d 891 (9th Cir. 2016), and de Havilland v. FX Networks, LLC, 21 Cal. App. 5th 845 (2018). For games, art prints, and other works where a realistic likeness is the attraction, go to question 3.

3. Apply the forum's First Amendment test. Under the transformative use test of Comedy III Productions, Inc. v. Gary Saderup, Inc., 25 Cal. 4th 387 (2001), ask whether the person is raw material for something new or the sum and substance of the work, and whether the work's market value comes mainly from the person's fame. Distortion, fantasy, and new contexts protect, as in Winter v. DC Comics, 30 Cal. 4th 881 (2003), and Kirby v. Sega of America, Inc., 144 Cal. App. 4th 47 (2006). Realistic depictions of people doing what made them famous do not, as in Hart v. Electronic Arts, Inc., 717 F.3d 141 (3d Cir. 2013), and No Doubt v. Activision Publishing, Inc., 192 Cal. App. 4th 1018 (2011). In the Sixth Circuit, ask whether the use is related to the content, under Parks v. LaFace Records, 329 F.3d 437 (6th Cir. 2003). In Missouri state court, assume the predominant use test of Doe v. TCI Cablevision, 110 S.W.3d 363 (Mo. 2003), and review every internal and public statement about why the person was used.

4. Is the use really just facts? Names, statistics, historical events, and records of public performances are generally free to use, as C.B.C. Distribution & Marketing, Inc. v. Major League Baseball Advanced Media, L.P., 505 F.3d 818 (8th Cir. 2007), held for fantasy baseball. A playable, realistic body is not a fact.

5. Is the use incidental? A fleeting background appearance, a passing mention, or a crowd shot that adds no value is generally not actionable. But a likeness that is part of what the product sells is not incidental, as Davis v. Electronic Arts Inc., 775 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2015), held for unnamed historical players in a football game.

6. Does copyright preemption apply? If the person appears only in licensed footage, photographs, or recordings, and the use is in an expressive work rather than an ad, a publicity claim may be preempted under 17 U.S.C. § 301, as in Dryer v. National Football League, 814 F.3d 938 (8th Cir. 2016). Preemption does not help in advertising or on merchandise, as Maloney v. T3Media, Inc., 853 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2017), took care to say.

Record the result in the inventory with one of four dispositions: clear (protected; document why), clear with changes (protected if a specific change is made), license (get consent or do not use), or escalate (a judgment call for the producer and insurer). Use this rough sorting table as a cross-check:

Step 4: Review every factual scene for defamation, false light, and private facts

When: on every draft of the script or manuscript, again on the locked cut or final pages. Who: clearance counsel, with a researcher or fact checker. Time: for a feature-length docudrama, typically one to three weeks of combined research and legal review.

The publicity analysis rarely stops a docudrama; this step does. Build an annotated script, which is the industry's standard defense file: next to every scene that depicts a real person, a tag and a source.

• F (factual): happened as shown; cite the source (transcript page, interview, article, court record).
• D (dramatized): based on real events, with invented dialogue or compressed time; cite the underlying facts and note what was invented.
• C (composite): a character or event that merges several real ones; list who and what was merged.
• I (invented): no factual basis; flag for legal review if it involves an identifiable real person.

Then apply four tests to every D, C, and I tag that touches an identifiable person:

1. Would a reasonable viewer take it as a statement of fact? A visibly dramatized scene of a private conversation usually conveys the gist of what happened; a scene showing a specific crime conveys a factual accusation. Opinion is not a blanket defense, as Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (1990), held, because opinions can imply false facts.
2. Is it materially false? Invented dialogue is not defamatory unless it changes the meaning of what the person actually said or did, under Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc., 501 U.S. 496 (1991).
3. Is it damaging or highly offensive? Crimes, sexual conduct, disease, dishonesty, and professional incompetence are the danger zones.
4. What fault standard applies, and can you meet it? Public figures must prove actual malice under New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964); private figures usually need only negligence under Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974). The annotated script is your proof of good faith. An invented accusation that contradicts your own research file is the textbook example of knowing falsity.

Private people deserve extra care. A secondary character who was a private citizen (a juror, a neighbor, an assistant, a victim's relative) has a stronger defamation position and a real private-facts claim if you reveal medical, sexual, or family details that are not newsworthy. The cheap fixes are a changed name, changed identifying details, or a composite, and an appearance or depiction release where the person is cooperating. Do not change the name of the central public figure in a true story; that tends to look evasive and does not help if everyone knows who it is.

Finally, check the marketing language against the annotation. A film tagged "D" in forty places should not be sold as "the true story." New York's knowing-fictionalization rule, from Spahn v. Julian Messner, Inc., 21 N.Y.2d 124 (1967), punishes a substantially invented biography dressed up as fact, and "inspired by true events" is both more accurate and more defensible. For the defamation framework, see Defamation, Business Disparagement, and Online Reviews.

Step 5: Decide whether to buy life rights, releases, or nothing

When: before development money is committed to a subject-centered project; releases for secondary people during production. Who: producer and business affairs, with counsel. Time: life rights deals take weeks to months to negotiate; short-form releases take days.

The law does not require a life rights agreement. The California Court of Appeal said so directly in de Havilland, and the Fifth Circuit rejected the idea that the right of publicity protects a life story in Matthews v. Wozencraft, 15 F.3d 432 (5th Cir. 1994). A life rights deal is a business purchase of four things, and you should buy it only if you need at least one of them:

1. Access. Memories, diaries, photos, recordings, and introductions to other people that you cannot get from the public record.
2. A release. A waiver of defamation, privacy, and publicity claims, which matters most when the project will invent scenes about the subject's private life.
3. Practical exclusivity. The subject promises not to cooperate with competing projects. This does not stop anyone else from telling the story from public sources, but it keeps the best source to yourself.
4. Marketing value. "Based on the life of" credit and the subject's participation in publicity.

The standard structure is an option followed by a purchase. A typical agreement grants an exclusive option for a fixed period (often 12 to 18 months, with paid extensions), with the option payment credited against a purchase price that is often stated as a percentage of the production budget with a floor and a ceiling. The terms that matter most for clearance are these:

• Definition of the rights. Name, likeness, voice, biography, and events, "whether wholly or partially factual or fictional," across all media, with sequel and merchandising rights spelled out.
• Waiver and release of defamation, false light, privacy, and publicity claims, binding heirs. In California, the release should expressly waive Civil Code § 1542, which otherwise preserves unknown claims.
• Consultation without approval. The subject consults; the producer keeps final creative control. Never promise script approval you will not honor.
• No injunction. The subject's remedies are limited to money damages, so a dispute cannot stop distribution.
• Reserved rights. Subjects often keep book rights; make sure the reservation does not swallow your project.
• Representations about the subject's materials, an indemnity for third-party claims those materials cause, and confidentiality.

Remember that what you promise is enforceable. Cohen v. Cowles Media Co., 501 U.S. 663 (1991), held that the First Amendment does not shield the press from generally applicable contract and promissory estoppel law. A producer who promises a subject approval of the script, a sympathetic portrayal, or anonymity has created a claim the First Amendment will not defeat.

For secondary people, use short-form depiction releases (consent to be portrayed, including in fictionalized and composite form, with a waiver of claims and no injunctive relief) and, for documentaries, appearance releases for interviewees. Get a parent's or guardian's signature for minors; New York's statute requires it for written consent, and in California, court approval of a minor's entertainment contract is what keeps the minor from later disaffirming it. Watch the scope: the release that covered the film may not cover a sponsor's commercial, which is exactly the problem in Facenda v. N.F.L. Films, Inc., 542 F.3d 1007 (3d Cir. 2008), where the narrator's release expressly excluded any use that would constitute an endorsement. Form language for both releases is in the Right of Publicity Toolkit: Releases, NIL Agreements, and Takedown Demands.

Step 6: Apply the rules for your medium

Scripted film and television. Steps 3 and 4 govern. Most scripted risk lives in invented scenes about private conduct, composite characters who are still recognizable as one real person, and secondary private figures. The Florida Supreme Court's reading of its statute in Tyne v. Time Warner Entertainment Co., 901 So. 2d 802 (Fla. 2005) (The Perfect Storm) and the Sixth Circuit's decision in Ruffin-Steinback v. dePasse, 267 F.3d 457 (6th Cir. 2001) (The Temptations) are the comforting authorities; the annotated script is the work.

Documentaries and docuseries. The subject matter is usually newsworthy, as in Dora v. Frontline Video, Inc., 15 Cal. App. 4th 536 (1993), so the clearance burden shifts to archival licenses, appearance releases, fair use determinations for clips (insurers usually want a written opinion from counsel), and privacy for private people caught on camera. Check state recording laws before using any covertly recorded audio.

Books and long-form journalism. Unauthorized biographies, true crime, and historical fiction are protected, and the cover is advertising for the book. The New York rule from Spahn is the main publicity trap; defamation is the main exposure. Keep the research file.

Podcasts and audio drama. Treat a narrative podcast like a documentary or docudrama. The extra risks are host-read sponsor ads (never let a guest's name or voice appear to endorse a sponsor without written consent) and imitated voices in advertising, which are actionable under Midler v. Ford Motor Co., 849 F.2d 460 (9th Cir. 1988), and Waits v. Frito-Lay, Inc., 978 F.2d 1093 (9th Cir. 1992).

Video games. This is the medium where the cases go against creators. Realistic avatars of athletes and performers in their own field need licenses, which the major sports titles obtain through the players' unions' group licensing programs. The alternatives are original characters, a transformed setting or profession (as in Kirby), or a statistics-only design. Watch user creation tools too: a character creator that ships with a preset named after a star is your use, not the user's. Games also generate the most marketing assets (store pages, trailers, influencer kits), and each one is advertising. See Launching a Game: A Practical Legal Guide for Studios and Publishers.

Music. Songs that mention celebrities are protected expression; a lyric is not "advertising or trade" under New York law, as Lohan v. Perez, 924 F. Supp. 2d 447 (E.D.N.Y. 2013), held. Titles that use a famous name must relate to the song's content under Parks. Samples of a real person's recorded voice are mainly a copyright licensing question, and a properly licensed sample usually defeats the publicity claim through preemption, as in Laws v. Sony Music Entertainment, Inc., 448 F.3d 1134 (9th Cir. 2006).

Visual art and prints. Original paintings and limited editions that comment on or commemorate a real event are generally protected, as in ETW Corp. v. Jireh Publishing, Inc., 332 F.3d 915 (6th Cir. 2003), and New York keeps fine art outside "trade," as Foster v. Svenson, 128 A.D.3d 150 (1st Dep't 2015), illustrates. Unlimited reproductions of a literal portrait on consumer goods are the Comedy III problem.

AI-generated performances and digital replicas. Recreating a real person's face or voice with generative tools raises every issue above plus a new statutory layer. Tennessee's ELVIS Act covers voice and reaches the distribution of tools whose primary purpose is producing a person's likeness or voice without authorization. California now restricts digital replicas of deceased personalities in audiovisual works and sound recordings under § 3344.1, with carve-outs for news, documentary, biographical, historical, satirical, and similar uses, and its Labor Code § 927 makes unenforceable a contract provision that lets a digital replica stand in for a performer's in-person work when the intended uses are not reasonably specifically described and the performer had neither a lawyer nor a union negotiating for them. New York's § 50-f imposes disclaimer requirements for certain unauthorized digital replicas of deceased performers in scripted works. Union agreements add consent and compensation requirements for performers' digital replicas. The practical rule: get written, use-specific consent from the living person or the estate for any synthetic voice or face of a real person, disclose AI use accurately on the E&O application, and label any satirical synthetic depiction so that no one could take it as an authentic recording. See Name, Image, Likeness, and Digital Replicas: The ELVIS Act, the NO FAKES Act, and Deepfake Law.

Step 7: Review titles, marketing, merchandise, and brand partners separately

When: as each marketing asset is created, not at the end. Who: clearance counsel and the marketing lead. Time: ongoing; budget a review cycle of a day or two for each campaign wave.

This is where clean works generate dirty claims, so treat it as its own review.

• Titles. A title using a real person's name is protected if it relates to the work and does not explicitly mislead, under Rogers v. Grimaldi, 875 F.2d 994 (2d Cir. 1989). If the name will become a brand (a franchise, a merchandise line, a product name), Rogers will not help on the federal claim after Jack Daniel's Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products LLC, 599 U.S. 140 (2023), and the USPTO will refuse to register a mark identifying a particular living individual without written consent under 15 U.S.C. § 1052 (subsection (c)), or one falsely suggesting a connection with a person, living or dead (subsection (a)). For the federal side of title and name disputes, see Trademark Fair Use: Descriptive Use, Nominative Use, and Expressive Works After Jack Daniel's.
• Key art, trailers, covers, and store pages. Advertising for a protected work is protected, but use the actor or an illustration rather than a photograph of the real person where you can, and never imply the person endorses or participated in the work if they did not. That is the line in Cher v. Forum International, Ltd., 692 F.2d 634 (9th Cir. 1982).
• Taglines. "The true story" is a factual claim; "inspired by true events" is not.
• Product placement and sponsor tie-ins inside the work. If a sponsor's product appears in the hands of a real person's character, the depiction can imply a real-world endorsement. Clear it as advertising.
• Brand and social campaigns. Any post that links a third party's product to a real person is commercial speech, as Jordan v. Jewel Food Stores, Inc., 743 F.3d 509 (7th Cir. 2014), held for a grocer's congratulatory ad. The FTC's Endorsement Guides, 16 C.F.R. Part 255, add a deception layer for implied endorsements.
• Merchandise. License the real person's likeness or design merchandise around the work's title, logo, and the actor's licensed image. The narrow exception is merchandise that is itself expressive and commemorative; the Eleventh Circuit protected books, a film, and a commemorative plaque about Rosa Parks sold at Target in Rosa & Raymond Parks Institute for Self Development v. Target Corp., 812 F.3d 824 (11th Cir. 2016). Do not build a merchandise plan on that exception without a written opinion.

For merchandise deal terms, see Negotiating a Publishing or Merchandising License: A Practical Guide.

Step 8: Use disclaimers that do work, and skip the ones that do not

Disclaimers are cheap, so producers overestimate them. A disclaimer works when it changes what a reasonable audience understands, and fails when it contradicts what the work plainly communicates.

Place working disclaimers where the audience will actually see them: at the start of each episode (not just the end credits), in streaming descriptions, on book copyright pages and jacket copy, and in podcast show notes and the opening audio.

Step 9: Assemble the clearance file and get errors and omissions insurance

When: begin the E&O application when you bind the production insurance package; finalize at picture lock. Who: producer, clearance counsel, and the insurance broker. Time: underwriting usually takes days to a few weeks once the file is complete.

Producers' errors and omissions insurance covers claims arising from the content of a production: defamation, false light and other privacy claims, right of publicity, copyright and trademark infringement, and similar theories. Distributors, networks, and streamers require it as a delivery item, usually naming themselves as additional insureds; for the rest of the delivery schedule, see Producing a Film or Series: Rights, Talent, and Distribution Agreements. Policies are commonly written on a claims-made basis, with multi-year terms for a picture and a per-claim and aggregate limit (one million per claim and three million aggregate is a familiar benchmark), plus a deductible or retention the producer pays first. Premiums vary widely with the budget, the subject matter, the number of real people depicted, and the quality of the clearance work; a docudrama about living public figures costs more to insure than a fantasy feature. See Business Insurance and Coverage Disputes: CGL, E&O, Cyber, and D&O for how claims-made coverage works.

The application asks you to confirm that you followed the insurer's clearance procedures. Those procedures, which are broadly similar across carriers, include counsel's review of the script before shooting, a title report, a copyright report for underlying works, licenses for music and clips, and releases from all identifiable living people portrayed or a written determination by counsel that a release is not necessary. That last phrase is where this guide's work pays off. Assemble the clearance file as follows:

1. The real-person inventory from Step 1, with dispositions from Step 3.
2. The publicity memo for any depiction you marked "license" or "escalate," and a short determination for each "clear" item.
3. The annotated script or manuscript from Step 4, with the source binder.
4. Life rights agreements, depiction releases, and appearance releases, indexed to the inventory.
5. Licenses for archival footage, photographs, and music, and any fair use opinions.
6. The marketing review from Step 7, including approved key art, trailers, taglines, and store copy.
7. The disclaimer text and placement from Step 8.
8. Correspondence with subjects, including objections and your responses.
9. An accurate description of any AI-generated or AI-altered material.

Read the policy you get. Underwriters sometimes add exclusions for claims by a named high-risk subject, limit advertising coverage to advertising for the production itself, or exclude merchandising. A brand facing a claim over its own social post should look instead at its commercial general liability policy, whose "personal and advertising injury" coverage traditionally includes publication of material that violates a person's right of privacy, subject to exclusions that vary by policy and that often bar coverage for companies in media businesses.

Step 10: Handle objections, demand letters, and threatened injunctions

When: whenever a subject, estate, or lawyer objects, before or after release. Who: counsel, the producer, and the insurer. Time: the first response usually goes out within a week; an anti-SLAPP motion in California is due within 60 days of service of the complaint.

1. Preserve and notify. Issue a litigation hold covering the research file, drafts, marketing assets, and internal messages. Give notice to the E&O carrier immediately; a claims-made policy can be lost by late notice.
2. Classify the objection. Is it really a publicity claim, or a defamation, privacy, contract, or copyright claim wearing a publicity label? The answer determines your defenses and your leverage.
3. Ask for specifics. Request the scenes, statements, or uses at issue and the facts the objector says are wrong. Specific objections can often be resolved with a change; vague ones usually signal a weak claim.
4. Re-run Steps 3 and 4 on the challenged material. If your own file shows a scene is false and damaging, fix it before release; the cost of a reshoot or a new edit is almost always smaller than the cost of litigation, and a documented correction undercuts any actual malice argument.
5. Prepare for the injunction threat. Pre-publication injunctions against expressive works are prior restraints and are rarely granted; when a New York trial court barred the Porco film's broadcast, the Appellate Division vacated the order and the film aired on schedule. Have the work, the annotated script, and declarations ready, and be prepared to oppose any request under Fed. R. Civ. P. 65 or its state equivalent on a day's notice.
6. Plan the first motion. In California, the anti-SLAPP motion will usually be available even for commercial businesses, because Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.17(d)(2) preserves it for actions based on the creation, dissemination, or advertisement of dramatic, literary, musical, political, or artistic works. The record that won Sarver v. Chartier and de Havilland was assembled from the clearance file: declarations from the creators about theme and research, from marketing about what the ads used, and from a researcher authenticating public sources. Do not remove to federal court without checking whether the circuit will hear the motion. Mechanics are in Filing an Anti-SLAPP Motion: A Practical Guide.
7. Consider, cautiously, a declaratory judgment action. A creator facing a persistent threat can sometimes sue first under 28 U.S.C. § 2201 to choose the forum, but suing first gives up the anti-SLAPP motion, which is a defendant's tool.
8. Settle on terms that do not undercut the work. Typical settlements involve an edit, a disclaimer, a consulting fee, a credit, or a donation, without any admission and with a release that covers sequels, ancillary uses, and marketing.

If you are the person depicted: a playbook from first notice to a pre-release demand

Everything above is written from the producer's chair. This section is for the person on the other side of the lens, and for estates and their lawyers. Subjects usually learn about a project late, from a trade announcement, a researcher's email, or a trailer, and the moves that pay off are early, specific, and in writing.

Step A: Find out what is being made, and preserve it

When: at first notice. Who: the subject or a representative, ideally with counsel. Time: a few days.

Collect everything public: the announcement, logline, casting news, trailer, key art, streaming or store page, press kit, and any merchandise listing. Reply to researchers briefly and in writing, or through counsel, because anything you say can end up in the work or in a declaration supporting a motion to strike. Ask the producer three questions: what form the work takes (documentary, dramatization, or fiction "inspired by" you), which real events it covers, and whether any advertising, merchandise, or sponsor tie-in will use your name, image, or voice. You are not entitled to the script, and demanding approval usually ends the conversation; offering to correct specific facts often starts one.

Preserve your own evidence from the first day: dated screenshots with URLs, saved copies of trailers and posts, and every message from the production. Once litigation is reasonably anticipated, the duty to preserve binds plaintiffs too, and the sanctions in Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e) apply to both sides. See Litigation Holds, Spoliation, and Rule 37(e): Preserving Electronic Evidence Before It Costs You the Case.

Step B: Decide what you actually want

People depicted usually want one of five things: money, participation (a consulting fee, a credit, input on the facts), correction of specific scenes, removal of their likeness from ads and products, or for the work not to exist at all. The law gives real leverage for the first four and almost none for the fifth. A court order stopping a book, film, or broadcast before release is a prior restraint, and the Supreme Court has called prior restraints "the most serious and the least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights" in Nebraska Press Ass'n v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539 (1976), a line of cases running back to Near v. Minnesota ex rel. Olson, 283 U.S. 697 (1931).

If the producer offers a life rights deal, read Step 5 from the other side of the table. You would be releasing defamation, privacy, and publicity claims, giving up approval and injunctions, and promising not to help competing projects, in exchange for money, consultation, credit, and access to the people making the work. Much of that is negotiable: a paid consultation on each draft, a factual review limited to identified scenes, a covenant not to depict you committing a crime you did not commit, a reserved book or podcast right, and a release that does not reach scenes added after you sign. Signing ends most of the leverage described below, so negotiate first. If someone hands you a one-page appearance or depiction release on set, read its scope; the words "advertising and promotion" and "all media now known or hereafter devised" do more work than anything else on the page.

Step C: Match the claim to the harm

Pick the claim that fits what is actually wrong. Leading with the wrong one is the costliest mistake a subject can make, because a weak publicity claim against an expressive work invites an early motion to strike and a fee award.

Two rows deserve emphasis. First, copyright is the subject's most underused tool. If the production uses your photographs, home movies, recordings, letters, or journals, you (or whoever created them) may own the copyright. A copyright claim belongs in federal court, is not subject to state anti-SLAPP statutes there, and turns on fair use rather than the publicity tests, and unpublished material gets extra weight: Harper & Row involved an unpublished presidential memoir, and Salinger a biographer's close paraphrase of unpublished letters. For a U.S. work, you must register before you sue under 17 U.S.C. § 411, as Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com, LLC, 586 U.S. 296 (2019), holds, and statutory damages under 17 U.S.C. § 504 and fees under 17 U.S.C. § 505 depend on timely registration under 17 U.S.C. § 412. Register early. But copyright protects expression, not facts or a life story. When Howard Hughes's company bought the copyrights in magazine articles about him to block a biography, the Second Circuit reversed a preliminary injunction against the biography and held that its use of the articles was fair in Rosemont Enterprises, Inc. v. Random House, Inc., 366 F.2d 303 (2d Cir. 1966). For registering photographs, see Copyright Registration of Photographs; for small claims, the Copyright Claims Board process is in Bringing or Defending a Claim Before the Copyright Claims Board: A Practical Guide.

Second, a defamation claim by a public figure lives or dies on fault. Reckless disregard means the creator actually entertained serious doubts about the truth, under St. Amant, and a creator who deliberately avoids the evidence that would disprove a story can qualify, under Harte-Hanks Communications, Inc. v. Connaughton, 491 U.S. 657 (1989). Steps D and E turn that rule into a plan.

Step D: Count the deadlines and the fee risk

The clock usually starts at first publication and does not restart with every stream, download, or day a page stays online. New York applies the single-publication rule to internet publication in Firth v. State of New York, 98 N.Y.2d 365 (2002), and the California Supreme Court applied the statutory rule (Cal. Civ. Code § 3425.3) to commercial misappropriation claims in Christoff v. Nestlé USA, Inc., 47 Cal. 4th 468 (2009), while leaving open when a long-running use is one publication rather than many. A new cut, a new edition, or a new ad campaign may be a republication. Calendar the earliest plausible date, not the latest.

Step E: Send a specific letter before release

A good pre-release letter does three jobs: it gives the producer a cheap chance to fix the problem, it builds the record that defeats a later claim of honest mistake, and it gets routed to the insurer, whose counsel will judge it on the merits. Write it this way:

1. Identify each problem precisely: episode, scene, timestamp, page, ad, or product.
2. State what is false and attach proof: documents, transcripts, contemporaneous records, other witnesses. A bare denial does little, because subjects deny almost everything. Documents that give the producer what St. Amant called "obvious reasons to doubt" a source are what can turn a later broadcast into reckless disregard. In Bindrim v. Mitchell, 92 Cal. App. 3d 61 (1979), a publisher found to have no actual malice in printing a novel's hardcover edition was held to have it for the paperback edition it authorized after the plaintiff's lawyer wrote to explain that the book's therapist character was his client.
3. Separate the asks: changes to the work, removal of your likeness from advertising and merchandise, inclusion of your response, and payment for any commercial use.
4. Do not demand that the work be shelved, and do not threaten an injunction you cannot get. Overreaching makes the letter easy to dismiss and tends to reappear as an exhibit to the other side's motion to strike.
5. Send it to the right people: the producer and the legal department of the distributor, network, or publisher, with proof of delivery.
6. Check the retraction statute if the publisher is a newspaper or broadcaster. California's Civil Code § 48a, for example, limits a plaintiff to special damages unless a correction was demanded within 20 days after learning of the publication and the publisher failed to run one.

Templates are in the Right of Publicity Toolkit: Releases, NIL Agreements, and Takedown Demands and the Publicity and Free Speech Toolkit: Transformative Use Memos, Newsworthiness Analyses, and Anti-SLAPP Motions; the general craft is in Writing a Demand Letter: The Basics.

Step F: Platforms, deepfakes, and anonymous posters

When the problem is someone else's content on a platform (a fake endorsement ad, an AI-generated video, an impersonation account), the playbook changes:

• Use the platform's own tools first. Impersonation, privacy, and synthetic-media complaint channels are faster than any court.
• Use copyright where you can. If the post copies your own photo or footage, a notice under 17 U.S.C. § 512 requires the host to remove it expeditiously to keep its safe harbor. See How to File a DMCA Takedown Notice (And Respond to One).
• Use the statutes written for sexual deepfakes. The federal TAKE IT DOWN Act (2025) requires covered platforms to remove reported nonconsensual intimate images, including AI-generated ones, within 48 hours of a valid request, and California (Civ. Code § 1708.86) and New York (Civ. Rights Law § 52-c) give civil claims against the people who create and spread them.
• Know the § 230 split before suing a platform. Under 47 U.S.C. § 230, state publicity claims against a platform are barred in the Ninth Circuit under Perfect 10, Inc. v. CCBill LLC, 488 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir. 2007), but can proceed in the Third Circuit under Hepp v. Facebook, 14 F.4th 204 (3d Cir. 2021). The person who made the content gets no immunity anywhere.
• Unmask anonymous creators with an early subpoena; see Identifying an Anonymous Defendant Online: A Practical Guide.

Notes for estates

An estate's tools are narrower than a living person's. In most states defamation claims cannot be brought for statements about the dead (Restatement (Second) of Torts § 560), and privacy claims other than appropriation belong only to the living (§ 652I). Pending claims can die too: in Ruffin-Steinback v. dePasse, the Sixth Circuit rejected publicity claims by relatives and associates of the Temptations over a fictionalized miniseries and held that one mother's defamation claim did not survive her death. What remains is real: the postmortem right against merchandise and advertising (after confirming domicile at death and registering where California's § 3344.1 or New York's § 50-f requires it), copyright in the decedent's writings, photographs, and recordings, the digital replica statutes, and any contract the decedent signed. For licensing on the estate's own terms, see Licensing and Protecting Name, Image, and Likeness: A Practical Guide.

Costs and timelines at a glance

These are rough planning figures for a U.S. production in 2026, not quotes. They move with the market, the lawyer, the vendor, and above all the number of living people who appear in invented scenes.

Two numbers drive the economics. For creators, the annotated script costs little next to a reshoot forced by a demand letter. For subjects, fee shifting under the anti-SLAPP statutes and § 3344's prevailing-party clause can turn a weak claim into a six-figure bill, which is why claim selection in Step C comes before everything else.

Worked example: clearing a documentary-drama hybrid about two surfers

Saltline Films, a Los Angeles production company, is seven weeks from delivering Second Reef, a 96-minute hybrid documentary for a streaming service about the rivalry between two big-wave surfers in the late 1970s. The cut mixes new interviews, licensed contest footage and magazine photographs, six dramatized reenactments with actors, and narration in which an AI-generated recreation of one surfer's voice reads from his journals. An eight-episode companion podcast of extended interviews, sponsored by a wetsuit maker, launches the same week, and a merchandise partner has proposed three T-shirts.

The people. Theo Kahale died in 2019, domiciled in California. His daughter, Leilani, is his sole successor, has registered her claim with the California Secretary of State under § 3344.1, and owns the copyright in his journals and home movies. Rhett Callan is 74, lives in Montauk, New York, and declined to participate. Marisol Vega, Theo's former wife, is a private person who sat for a long interview. About forty other surfers, judges, and spectators appear in archival footage.

Steps 1 and 2. The inventory runs to 47 rows, most of them people in contest footage who are disposed of in a sentence each: incidental, inside a licensed work, no marketing use. California law governs Theo's postmortem rights because he died domiciled there. Rhett would most likely sue under New York law, which reaches only "advertising" and "trade," carries the Spahn exception, and allows one year to sue; but Saltline is in California and the film streams there, so counsel clears under both states and plans for an anti-SLAPP motion in either.

Steps 3 through 8. The dispositions that mattered:

Two rows took real judgment.

The fin scene. The only source for the sabotage story is a rival surfer who first told it in 2023, forty-five years after the contest. The research file contains Rhett's flat denial in a 1979 magazine interview and a contest official's contemporaneous note that the fin broke on impact. A story resting on a source with obvious reasons to doubt it is the classic reckless-disregard record under St. Amant, and here Saltline's own file would prove the doubts. Saltline cut the reenactment and kept the rumor only as attributed interview material, followed immediately by the 1979 denial and the official's note. Attribution alone is not a defense, because repeating a defamatory charge can itself be defamation, but presenting a disputed account as disputed changes what a reasonable viewer takes away and is far easier to defend. The reenactment had already cost two shooting days, which is the argument for starting clearance at the script stage.

The AI narration. Two rights are in play: the estate's copyright in Theo's unpublished journals, which makes fair use a poor bet after Harper & Row, and the rules for digital replicas of a deceased personality's voice under § 3344.1 as amended in 2024. California's carve-outs for documentary and biographical uses might cover the narration, but the safer reading, and the one the underwriter wanted, is that a synthetic voice that viewers could take for an authentic recording needs consent. The estate license covers the journal passages and the recreated voice; limits use to the film, its trailers, and the podcast; bars any use in third-party advertising; gives the estate approval of the final narration audio (a narrow approval Saltline can honor, unlike approval of the story); and requires a label at first use: "Theo Kahale's journal entries are read in a voice recreated with AI from archival recordings, with the permission of his estate." The 2021 documentary about Anthony Bourdain, which drew sharp criticism when viewers learned that a few lines had been synthesized in his voice without disclosure, is the reputational version of the same lesson. Saltline also flags the narration for its copyright registration, because the Copyright Office's 2023 registration guidance for works containing AI-generated material (88 Fed. Reg. 16190) requires applicants to disclose generated material that is more than de minimis; see Copyright in AI-Assisted Works: Human Authorship, Thaler v. Perlmutter, and the Copyright Office Guidance.

Step 9. The clearance file goes to the broker with the inventory, eleven written determinations, the annotated script with 214 source citations, Marisol's depiction release, the estate license, 23 footage and photo licenses, the marketing approvals, the disclaimer text, and an accurate description of the AI narration. The underwriter asks two questions (Is the fin reenactment gone? Does the estate license cover the podcast?) and binds a policy of $1 million per claim and $3 million in the aggregate with no subject-specific exclusion.

Step 10, from both sides. Nine days after the trailer drops, Rhett's lawyer writes demanding that every reference to the fin story come out, that his image come off the thumbnail and all merchandise, and that the film be held for his review, on threat of an injunction. Saltline issues a hold and notifies the carrier the same day, and replies within a week: the reenactment is gone; no thumbnail, poster, or product uses Rhett; the rumor remains only as attributed, contested interview material; and Rhett is invited to give a current statement for the end card. Rhett's lawyer, working through the playbook above, sees that the claims with the most value (the T-shirt and, more arguably, the thumbnail) are already resolved; that a statutory claim over a documentary about a newsworthy rivalry fails under New York's newsworthiness doctrine and Porco; that a defamation claim would now target an attributed account paired with his client's denial; and that suing invites an anti-SLAPP motion and fee exposure in either state. He sends a two-sentence statement, Saltline adds it to the end card, and the film streams on schedule.

What it cost. In this hypothetical: about six weeks of elapsed time, roughly $40,000 in legal and research fees, an E&O premium in the low five figures, and an estate license fee plus a modest back-end participation. The single most expensive item was the reenactment that should never have been shot, and the file caught it before it cost anything more.

Common mistakes in the clearance process

1. Clearing at picture lock instead of at the script. A change on the page costs nothing; a change to a locked cut costs reshoots, re-edits, new marketing assets, and sometimes a missed delivery date.
2. Keeping the research in people's heads. A scene without a source in the annotated script is a scene you cannot defend. Lifetime won Porco with the film, a timed dialogue script, and the police and trial record behind it; a researcher who leaves without filing the sources takes the defense along.
3. Releases that stop at the picture. Releases should cover advertising and promotion, ancillary works such as companion podcasts and behind-the-scenes programs, sequels, and all media. Facenda shows what an excluded use costs.
4. Buying access with promises. Approval rights, a sympathetic portrayal, or anonymity promised to a subject are enforceable under Cohen v. Cowles Media, whatever the First Amendment says about the work.
5. Letting marketing write its own copy. Taglines, thumbnails, and sponsor reads written by people who never saw the annotated script are where clean works pick up claims.
6. Shading the E&O application. An application that leaves out AI-generated material, a known objection, or an uncleared depiction invites a coverage fight when the claim arrives, and late notice can forfeit claims-made coverage altogether.
7. Answering a specific objection with bluster, or not at all. A precise complaint deserves a precise reply. Silence and insults become exhibits, and a documented correction is evidence of good faith.
8. For subjects, demanding the impossible. A letter insisting that a film be shelved tells the producer and the insurer that there is no claim worth paying; a letter saying "scene 12 is false, and here is the transcript" tells them the opposite.
9. For subjects, waiting for the premiere. New York allows one year to sue on statutory privacy and defamation claims, and a letter sent after release has a fraction of the leverage of one sent before.

For an item-by-item version of the whole process, use the Expressive Work Right of Publicity Risk Checklist: A Practical Checklist.

Frequently asked questions

When should clearance start, and what does starting late cost? At the script, manuscript, or design-document stage, with a second pass at picture or content lock. Fixes on paper are nearly free. Fixes after lock mean reshoots, re-edits, replaced marketing assets, and a rushed file that underwriters price accordingly.

Do I need a release from everyone who appears in my documentary? No. Interviewees should sign appearance releases, and anyone shown in a way that reveals private facts deserves a hard look, but people in public places, crowds, and licensed archival footage of newsworthy events generally do not need releases. Insurers' clearance procedures accept counsel's written determination that a release is unnecessary, which is exactly what Step 3 produces.

Is a script clearance report the same as legal clearance? No. A vendor's report compares character names, businesses, and locations with public records and flags matches. It does not decide whether a scene is defamatory, whether a use is advertising, or whether a release is needed; counsel's review answers those questions, and the E&O application asks about both.

When will the insurer want a fair use opinion? Whenever the work uses copyrighted clips, photographs, or music without a license on the theory that the use is fair, which is common in documentaries. Many carriers will cover those claims if counsel experienced in fair use gives a written opinion on each use. See Conducting a Fair Use Analysis: A Practical Guide and the Fair Use Toolkit: Analysis Memoranda, Clearance Decisions, and Litigation Positions.

Can I base a fictional character on someone I know? Yes, but a recognizable character carries the real person's defamation claim with it. In Bindrim, the case described in Step E, the novelist and her publisher lost a libel case even though she had changed a therapist's name and appearance, because his distinctive methods made him identifiable. The publicity claim is weaker: in New York, fiction is not "advertising or trade," as Jerry Seinfeld's former friend learned in Costanza v. Seinfeld, 279 A.D.2d 255 (1st Dep't 2001). Change enough identifying detail that the character stops being the person, or keep the invented material trivial or flattering.

Do podcasts and self-published books need E&O insurance? No law requires it, but distributors, networks, and some platforms do, and media liability policies are sold to podcasters, authors, and small publishers. With or without a policy, the clearance discipline is the same, and it is the best defense you will have.

What changes when the person depicted is a minor? Consent must come from a parent or guardian. In New York, a parent's unrestricted written consent binds the child, who cannot later disaffirm it, under Shields v. Gross, 58 N.Y.2d 338 (1983); in California, court approval of a minor's entertainment contract (Cal. Fam. Code §§ 6750 to 6753) is what prevents disaffirmance. Private-facts claims are also stronger for children, because few details of a child's life are matters of legitimate public concern, so blur, rename, or leave out when in doubt.

As the subject, can I insist on seeing the work before it is released? Not unless a contract gives you that right. You can ask, and producers sometimes screen specific scenes for factual accuracy, especially after a documented letter of the kind described in Step E. If you are negotiating a life rights or consulting agreement, that is where a screening right belongs.

Practical takeaways

• Classify every use (the work, its advertising, merchandise, and brand partnerships) before analyzing any of them; most claims come from the last three.
• Clear under the least protective law a plausible plaintiff could invoke, and know your first motion before anyone sues.
• Annotate every dramatized scene with its sources. The clearance file is the underwriter's file, the distributor's file, and the anti-SLAPP record.
• Buy life rights for access and a release, not because the law requires them, and never promise approval you will not honor.
• Get written, use-specific consent for any synthetic voice or face of a real person, label it, and disclose it to your insurer.
• Notify the carrier at the first objection, and answer specific complaints specifically.
• If you are the person depicted, match the claim to the harm, count the fee risk, and send a specific, documented letter before release.

This document is general information, not legal advice for any particular situation; the law changes, and the facts matter.

Related Documents

Related Articles

• The Right of Publicity and the First Amendment: Transformative Use, Newsworthiness, and the Limits of Owning a Persona: the doctrine behind every step of this guide, test by test and forum by forum.
• Right of Publicity Basics: a short primer on who holds the right and what it covers.
• The Right of Publicity: Name, Image, Likeness, Digital Replicas, and the Limits of Owning Yourself: the statutes and common law in depth.
• Name, Image, Likeness, and Digital Replicas: The ELVIS Act, the NO FAKES Act, and Deepfake Law: the voice and replica rules behind Step 6 and the AI narration in the worked example.
• Defamation, Business Disparagement, and Online Reviews: the law that the annotated script is built to answer.
• Anti-SLAPP Statutes and Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation: which states give creators an early motion and fee shifting.
• Trademark Fair Use: Descriptive Use, Nominative Use, and Expressive Works After Jack Daniel's: titles, names used as brands, and the federal side of Rogers.
• Section 230 and Platform Liability: What the Statute Actually Says and Where It Stops: when a platform can be sued over someone else's deepfake.
• Copyright in AI-Assisted Works: Human Authorship, Thaler v. Perlmutter, and the Copyright Office Guidance: registering a work that contains synthetic material.
• Video Game Law: Intellectual Property, Virtual Goods, User Content, and Player Protection: the wider legal frame for likenesses in games.

Related Guides

• Producing a Film or Series: Rights, Talent, and Distribution Agreements: chain of title, talent deals, and the delivery schedule that asks for the clearance file.
• Licensing and Protecting Name, Image, and Likeness: A Practical Guide: when licensing beats clearing, from either side of the deal.
• Filing an Anti-SLAPP Motion: A Practical Guide: the 60-day motion, step by step.
• Sponsorship, Endorsement, and Influencer Agreements: A Practical Guide: doing brand campaigns with real people the right way.
• Asserting or Defeating a Trademark Fair Use Defense: A Practical Guide: litigating title and name disputes under the Lanham Act.
• Identifying an Anonymous Defendant Online: A Practical Guide: subpoenas for subjects facing anonymous impersonators.
• Launching a Game: A Practical Legal Guide for Studios and Publishers: where likeness questions fit in a game's launch plan.

Related Checklists

• Expressive Work Right of Publicity Risk Checklist: A Practical Checklist: the item-by-item companion to the ten steps.
• Right of Publicity Clearance Checklist: A Practical Checklist: releases, stock images, and deceased personalities in everyday marketing.
• Litigation Hold and Evidence Preservation Checklist: A Practical Checklist: what both sides should keep once a dispute is likely.

Related Toolkits

• Publicity and Free Speech Toolkit: Transformative Use Memos, Newsworthiness Analyses, and Anti-SLAPP Motions: the memos and briefing outlines that the clearance file feeds.
• Right of Publicity Toolkit: Releases, NIL Agreements, and Takedown Demands: depiction releases, appearance releases, and demand letters.
• Entertainment and Media Production Toolkit: Rights, Talent, and Distribution: the production paperwork that sits beside the clearance file.
• Insurance Coverage Toolkit: Placing, Tendering, and Litigating Claims: tendering a claim to an E&O or CGL carrier.