B. Nimmer & the Rights of Publicity: A Tribute, 34 U.C.L.A. L.Rev. 1703, 1712 (1987) (stating that the right of publicity has “matured into a distinctive legal category occupying an important place in the law of intellectual property”); Black’s Lau) Dictionary 813 (7th ed.1999) (defining intellectual property as follows: “A category of intangible rights protecting commercially valuable products of the human intellect. The category comprises primarily trademark, copyright, and patent rights, but also includes trade-secret rights, publicity rights, moral rights, and rights against unfair competition.”). Further, Almeida argues that § 230(e)(2) extends to all intellectual property rights, even non-traditional state-law intellectual property rights. See Perfect 10, 340 F.Supp.2d at 1108-09 (<HOLDING>). Indeed, courts have held that intellectual
holding that the statute in question served to modify prior common law and that the legislature was empowered to make such changes in the common law based on the public interest holding that  230e2 applies to californias wrongful use of registered mark law cal bus  profcode  14335 and californias right of publicity law cal civcode  3344 holding that a change of venue was not warranted due to publicity surrounding an unrelated murder with common features because the defendant failed to establish any specific prejudice against him as a result of the publicity holding that based on  230e2 the cda does not apply to californias statutory and common law right of publicity claims holding that the right of publicity is descendible