to provide proof of preexisting commercial value and efforts to capitalize on such value in order to survive a motion to dismiss. The plain text of § 3344 provides simply that “[a]ny person who knowingly uses another’s name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness, in any manner ... for purposes of advertising or selling ... without such person’s consent ... shall be liable for any damages sustained by the person or persons injured as a result thereof.” Cal. Civ.Code § 3344. The statutory text makes no mention of preexisting value, and in fact can be read to presume that a person whose name, photograph, or likeness is used by another for commercial purposes without their consent is “injured as a result thereof.” Consistent with this reading, at least one court has su (9th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). Nor does the Court find any reason to impose
holding that claimant was entitled to workers compensation because he was injured in a parking lot which was leased by his employer holding that former majorleague baseball player was injured because he was not compensated for the use of his likeness holding that plaintiff could not show that he was disabled because he conceded that he could do his job despite his impairment holding that the defendants assertion that he missed a court date because of a lack of notice was insufficient under former section 72 since he had a duty to follow his case holding that defendant was not resident of his mothers household even though his drivers license listed his mothers address and he received mail there because he expressed a belief that his residence was in a different location than his mothers home he rented and occupied his own residence and he testified that he was only living with his mother after expiration of his lease until he could find another place to live