not review issues raised only by amicus curiae. Russian River Watershed Prot. Comm. v. City of Santa Rosa, 142 F.3d 1136, 1141 (9th Cir. 1998). Even had they made the argument, the district court nonetheless was correct to conclude that the rights plaintiffs assert are no different than the rights contained within the general scope of the Copyright Act. The complaint asserts statutory and common law publicity-right claims, and a claim for a violation of the UCL. Plaintiffs, however, do not identify any use of their likenesses independent of the display, reproduction, and distribution of the copyrighted material in which they are depicted. We have held that under those circumstances, none of plaintiffs’ claims is qualitatively different from a copyright claim. See Laws, 448 F.3d at 1144 (<HOLDING>); see also id. at 1143-44 (“squarely
holding that causation is an essential element in failure to warn claim holding that the mere presence of an additional element commercial use in section 3344 is not enough to qualitatively distinguish a right of publicity claim from a claim in copyright holding that the right of publicity is descendible holding that when a plaintiffs name and identity are used without intent to obtain a commercial advantage but where they are used for some other purpose the use is incidental and does not violate the right of publicity holding that an antitrust injury is a necessary element of a  2 claim