California Deceased Personality Right of Publicity Civ. Code § 3344.1 attorney fee petition mechanics: DATE OF FIRST UNAUTHORIZED COMMERCIAL USE OF DECEASED PERSONALITY'S NAME, VOICE, SIGNATURE, PHOTOGRAPH, OR LIKENESS as primary Welch anchor (the ONLY primary anchor in the fee-petition-mechanics series in an ENTERTAINMENT TALENT LICENSING AGENCY'S OWN CATALOG MANAGEMENT SYSTEM DATE — CMG Worldwide, Authentic Brands Group, Iconic Entertainments, BDE Ventures, Greenlight Rights record every authorized and unauthorized commercial use date on the agency's own institutional catalog management calendar entirely outside estate successor-plaintiff attorney's scheduling control; § 3344.1(a)(4) mandatory bilateral attorney fees to prevailing party; Lanham Act § 43(a) 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) false endorsement for voice misappropriation [Waits v. Frito-Lay, 978 F.2d 1093 (9th Cir. 1992)] → Ketchum/Dague split for voice components; § 3344.1-only name/signature/photograph/likeness components → pure Ketchum no Dague; DISTINCT from § 3344 [tier_yy — living personality right of publicity]), entertainment talent licensing agency catalog management calendar, probate court CRC 7.550 successor in interest calendar, SAG-AFTRA estate licensing audit calendar, and § 3344.1(a)(4) bilateral fee petition advisory

The § 3344.1(a)(1)–(5) protected attribute analysis, successor in interest probate standing advisory, § 3344.1(b) Secretary of State registration check, and entertainment talent licensing agency catalog management system identification advisory at the DATE OF FIRST UNAUTHORIZED COMMERCIAL USE: 5.39 untracked hours = $1,617–$2,695/year

The DATE OF FIRST UNAUTHORIZED COMMERCIAL USE OF DECEASED PERSONALITY'S NAME, VOICE, SIGNATURE, PHOTOGRAPH, OR LIKENESS — the date on which the commercial user first made an unauthorized commercial use of one of the deceased personality's five § 3344.1(a)(1)–(5) protected attributes, as detected and recorded by the entertainment talent licensing agency's own institutional catalog management system — is the primary Welch temporal anchor for § 3344.1 attorney fee billing documentation. It is the ONLY primary anchor in the fee-petition-mechanics series in an ENTERTAINMENT TALENT LICENSING AGENCY'S OWN CATALOG MANAGEMENT SYSTEM DATE. CMG Worldwide, Authentic Brands Group (ABG), Iconic Entertainments, BDE Ventures, and Greenlight Rights each maintain proprietary catalog management systems — rights management databases and IP licensing workflow platforms — that record every commercial use inquiry received, every unauthorized use detected, every cease-and-desist issued, and every licensing transaction completed on the agency's own institutional calendar; the Hensley lodestar begins from the DATE OF FIRST UNAUTHORIZED COMMERCIAL USE because § 3344.1(a)(4)'s mandatory bilateral attorney fee provision attaches at the moment of unauthorized use, and all attorney time from initial estate intake through the § 3344.1 case including fee petition is compensable in the § 3344.1(a)(4) fee petition if the estate successor-plaintiff prevails.

§ 3344.1's enactment and the California Celebrity Rights Act framework. Civ. Code § 3344.1 was enacted in 1985 — commonly called the California Celebrity Rights Act — and extended California's right of publicity protections to deceased personalities for a 70-year post-mortem term. § 3344.1(a) prohibits any person from knowingly using a deceased personality's name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness, in any manner, on or in products, merchandise, or goods, or for purposes of advertising or selling, or soliciting purchases of products, merchandise, goods, or services, without prior consent of the person or persons specified in § 3344.1(c). The five protected attributes — name (§ 3344.1(a)(1)), voice (§ 3344.1(a)(2)), signature (§ 3344.1(a)(3)), photograph (§ 3344.1(a)(4)), and likeness (§ 3344.1(a)(5)) — cover the full spectrum of posthumous personality commercialization: name licensing in product endorsements and brand partnerships, voice synthesis and AI voice cloning in commercial media, signature authentication and merchandise, photographic image licensing in print and digital advertising, and computer-generated likeness use in film, television, video games, and streaming media. § 3344.1(f) sets the 70-year post-mortem term: the right of publicity continues for 70 years after the death of the deceased personality. For personalities who died after January 1, 1985, § 3344.1 applies automatically; for personalities who died before 1985, there is a separate retroactivity question under § 3344.1(d) that requires analysis at intake.

The entertainment talent licensing agency catalog management system as the primary institutional calendar for § 3344.1 evidence. The DATE OF FIRST UNAUTHORIZED COMMERCIAL USE is categorically distinct from every other primary Welch anchor in the fee-petition-mechanics series because it exists in an ENTERTAINMENT TALENT LICENSING AGENCY'S OWN CATALOG MANAGEMENT SYSTEM DATE — not a county recorder's public records calendar, not a law enforcement evidence collection log, not an employer's HRIS platform, but the entertainment talent licensing agency's own proprietary rights management software that generates a dated institutional record of every commercial use transaction and every unauthorized use detection event involving the deceased personality's attributes. CMG Worldwide — the world's largest deceased personality rights management company, managing the commercial rights of James Dean, Marilyn Monroe, Bettie Page, and hundreds of other deceased personalities — maintains its own proprietary rights management database that records every commercial use detection event on CMG's own institutional calendar. Authentic Brands Group (ABG) — which manages the posthumous commercial rights of Elvis Presley (acquired from the Elvis Presley Enterprises estate), Muhammad Ali, and other major deceased personalities — maintains its own Salesforce-based IP licensing workflow platform that records every licensing inquiry received and every unauthorized use detected on ABG's own institutional calendar. Iconic Entertainments manages posthumous rights for select golden-era entertainment personalities through its own catalog management system; BDE Ventures and Greenlight Rights each maintain their own institutional platforms. When CMG Worldwide's catalog management system flags a new unauthorized use of a deceased personality's photographic image in a commercial advertising campaign — recording the detection date, the commercial user's identity, the advertising medium, and the geographic scope of the unauthorized use on CMG's own institutional platform calendar — that detection event creates the DATE OF FIRST UNAUTHORIZED COMMERCIAL USE: the primary Welch anchor for the Hensley lodestar in the § 3344.1 action, existing entirely in CMG's own institutional database outside the estate attorney's scheduling control. At 55% untracked: 7 clients × 2 calls × 42 min × 55% = 5.39 hrs = $1,617–$2,695/year at $300–$500/hr.

§ 3344.1(b) Secretary of State registration and the pre-enforcement compliance advisory. Section 3344.1(b) requires that any person who claims the right to use a deceased personality's name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness — and any person who claims standing to enforce those rights on behalf of the estate — must register that claim with the California Secretary of State. The § 3344.1(b) registration serves as the public notice mechanism for the California right of publicity system for deceased personalities: a commercial user who receives actual or constructive notice of the § 3344.1(b) registration cannot claim ignorance of the estate's rights as a defense to unauthorized use. The § 3344.1(b) registration obligation creates a pre-enforcement advisory call at intake: before the § 3344.1 civil action can be filed, the estate's attorney must confirm that the § 3344.1(b) registration is current, that the registration covers the specific § 3344.1(a)(1)–(5) attributes at issue in the unauthorized commercial use, and that the § 3344.1(c) successor in interest (the estate, trust, or designated heir) has been properly identified in the registration. If the § 3344.1(b) registration has lapsed or was never completed for a specific attribute (for example, if the estate registered the deceased personality's photographic likeness but not their voice), the advisory call at the DATE OF FIRST UNAUTHORIZED COMMERCIAL USE must address the registration gap and the risk that the commercial user defendant will argue that the estate's failure to register a specific attribute bars recovery for unauthorized use of that attribute. The Cal. Rules of Court 7.550 successor in interest designation proceeding interacts with the § 3344.1(b) registration obligation: the probate court's CRC 7.550 successor in interest designation is the mechanism by which the estate confirms its standing to bring the § 3344.1 civil action, while the Secretary of State's § 3344.1(b) registration is the public notice mechanism that confirms the estate's claim to the commercial rights in the deceased personality's attributes.

The entertainment talent licensing agency catalog management calendar, probate court CRC 7.550 successor in interest calendar, and SAG-AFTRA estate licensing audit calendar advisory call cycle: 7.26 untracked hours = $2,178–$3,630/year

California § 3344.1 deceased personality right of publicity practice generates three concurrent external institutional calendars entirely outside the estate successor-plaintiff attorney's scheduling control — the entertainment talent licensing agency's catalog management system calendar, the probate court CRC 7.550 successor in interest designation calendar, and the SAG-AFTRA estate licensing audit calendar. Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122. PLCM Group Inc. v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084. Hensley v. Eckerhart (1983) 461 U.S. 424 (lodestar from DATE OF FIRST UNAUTHORIZED COMMERCIAL USE OF DECEASED PERSONALITY'S NAME, VOICE, SIGNATURE, PHOTOGRAPH, OR LIKENESS). Missouri v. Jenkins (1989) 491 U.S. 274 (fees-on-fees).

Entertainment talent licensing agency catalog management system calendar. CMG Worldwide, Authentic Brands Group (ABG), Iconic Entertainments, BDE Ventures, and Greenlight Rights each maintain their own institutional catalog management systems — rights management databases and IP licensing workflow platforms — that generate a continuous stream of dated institutional records entirely outside the estate attorney's scheduling control. CMG Worldwide's proprietary rights management database records every unauthorized use detection event, every cease-and-desist issued, and every licensing inquiry received on CMG's own institutional calendar: when CMG's monitoring team detects a new unauthorized use of a deceased personality's photographic image in a Super Bowl commercial, the detection date, the commercial user's identity, the advertising medium, and the estimated scope of use are recorded on CMG's own institutional platform calendar — a new advisory event on a date the estate attorney did not schedule. When ABG's Salesforce-based IP licensing workflow platform records a new licensing inquiry from a fashion brand seeking to use a deceased personality's name and likeness in a limited-edition sneaker collaboration, the inquiry receipt date is recorded on ABG's own Salesforce calendar — triggering advisory calls to analyze whether the proposed use falls within § 3344.1's statutory exemptions or constitutes an unauthorized use requiring a cease-and-desist before licensing negotiations commence. When Greenlight Rights' licensing database flags a new unauthorized use of a deceased personality's likeness in a video game character design — a use that the game developer failed to license before the game's release — the detection date is recorded on Greenlight Rights' own institutional database calendar. Each of these catalog management system calendar events generates an advisory call that arrives on a date the estate attorney's own calendar did not control, and each advisory call produces attorney time that must be contemporaneously documented in the Hensley lodestar from the DATE OF FIRST UNAUTHORIZED COMMERCIAL USE through the § 3344.1 case resolution.

Probate court CRC 7.550 successor in interest calendar. California Rules of Court, rule 7.550 governs the procedure by which a deceased person's right of action — including a § 3344.1 right of publicity enforcement action — may be asserted by a successor in interest. The estate, trust, surviving spouse, children, grandchildren, or other designated heirs of the deceased personality who claim standing to bring a § 3344.1 civil action for unauthorized commercial use must petition the probate court for a CRC 7.550 successor in interest designation that confirms their standing to proceed in the civil superior court. The probate court — not the plaintiff attorney — sets the hearing date for the CRC 7.550 successor in interest designation petition on the probate court's own institutional docket calendar entirely outside the plaintiff attorney's scheduling control. Los Angeles County Superior Court Probate Division (Stanley Mosk Courthouse probate departments), San Francisco Superior Court Probate Department (Civic Center Courthouse), Alameda County Superior Court Probate Division (Rene C. Davidson Courthouse in Oakland), and San Diego County Superior Court Probate Division (Downtown San Diego courthouse) each set CRC 7.550 hearing dates on the probate court's own institutional calendar. Advisory calls arrive when the probate court sets the initial CRC 7.550 hearing date (on the probate court's own docket calendar outside the plaintiff attorney's scheduling control), when the probate court requests supplemental documentation for the successor in interest designation petition (generating advisory billing for document compilation and response preparation on a date the probate court set on its own calendar), when the probate court continues the CRC 7.550 hearing to a new date (another probate court calendar date outside the plaintiff attorney's scheduling control), and when the probate court issues the successor in interest designation order. The CRC 7.550 calendar interacts dynamically with the entertainment talent licensing agency's catalog management system calendar: the agency may detect a new unauthorized use and report it to the estate on the same day the probate court is scheduling the CRC 7.550 designation hearing, creating simultaneous parallel advisory billing from two externally-controlled institutional calendars — the entertainment talent licensing agency's catalog management system calendar and the probate court's own docket calendar.

SAG-AFTRA estate licensing audit calendar. If the deceased personality was a SAG-AFTRA member — a performer, vocalist, or on-camera talent who was a member of Screen Actors Guild or American Federation of Television and Radio Artists before death — the SAG-AFTRA Intellectual Property Rights Distribution Fund (IPRDF) may conduct periodic audits of posthumous commercial uses of the deceased member's recorded performances, voice work, and likeness appearances in commercial contexts. The IPRDF audit schedule is set by SAG-AFTRA's own institutional audit scheduling system entirely outside the estate attorney's scheduling control. SAG-AFTRA's audit team reviews the commercial user's production records, licensing agreements, residual payment documentation, and usage data for the deceased member's performances on a schedule the IPRDF determines on its own institutional calendar. The IPRDF audit calendar generates an independent institutional record of commercial use dates that may corroborate, supplement, or conflict with the entertainment talent licensing agency's catalog management system records: when SAG-AFTRA's IPRDF audit team reviews a commercial user's production records and identifies an unauthorized posthumous performance use that coincides with the same period covered by the § 3344.1 civil action, the IPRDF audit findings create a secondary institutional record of use dates on SAG-AFTRA's own institutional calendar. Advisory calls arrive when SAG-AFTRA schedules an IPRDF audit covering the relevant period (triggering coordination advisory to align the IPRDF audit findings with the § 3344.1 Hensley lodestar primary Welch anchor date in the entertainment talent licensing agency's catalog management system), when the IPRDF audit team requests documentary production from the estate (triggering document preparation advisory on a date SAG-AFTRA set on its own institutional calendar), and when the IPRDF audit findings are issued (potentially creating a secondary institutional record of unauthorized use dates that requires reconciliation with the primary Welch anchor in the entertainment talent licensing agency's own catalog management system calendar). At 55% untracked: 6 clients × 3 calls × 44 min × 55% = 7.26 hrs = $2,178–$3,630/year at $300–$500/hr.

The § 3344.1(a)(4) bilateral fee petition with Ketchum multiplier for § 3344.1-only name/signature/photograph/likeness components + Ketchum/Dague split for Lanham Act § 43(a) voice misappropriation components + bilateral fee risk as Ketchum contingency factor advisory call cycle: 4.03 untracked hours = $1,210–$2,017/year

Civ. Code § 3344.1(a)(4) provides that the prevailing party shall also be entitled to attorney's fees and costs — mandatory bilateral, not unilateral: both the estate successor-plaintiff AND the commercial user defendant may claim attorney fees if they prevail. The bilateral structure of § 3344.1(a)(4) distinguishes § 3344.1 from most other statutes in the fee-petition-mechanics series, and the bilateral fee risk at inception is itself a Ketchum contingency factor that supports a positive multiplier on the non-voice components of the lodestar. Every other statute in the fee-petition-mechanics series provides either unilateral mandatory fees to the plaintiff (§ 2945.4(a): estate successor-plaintiff fees only), unilateral mandatory fees against the government entity (CalECPA § 1546.4(b)(2): fees against government only), or bilateral mandatory fees that expose both parties to fee liability (§ 218.5: bilateral in wage claims; § 3344.1(a)(4): bilateral in deceased personality right of publicity). § 3344.1(a)(4)'s bilateral structure means the estate's attorney, at the DATE OF FIRST UNAUTHORIZED COMMERCIAL USE in the entertainment talent licensing agency's catalog management system, accepted a § 3344.1 contingency engagement knowing that a bilateral fee exposure existed: if the § 3344.1 claim failed at summary judgment or trial, the commercial user defendant could petition for § 3344.1(a)(4) attorney fees against the estate.

Pure Ketchum for § 3344.1-only name/signature/photograph/likeness components. For unauthorized commercial uses of a deceased personality's NAME, SIGNATURE, PHOTOGRAPH, or LIKENESS — uses that do not involve voice misappropriation and therefore have no direct Lanham Act § 43(a) false endorsement overlap — the § 3344.1(a)(4) attorney fee petition for those non-voice components is eligible for the pure Ketchum positive multiplier with no Dague constraint. There is no direct federal attorney fee-shifting statute with comparable coverage for unauthorized commercial use of a deceased personality's non-voice attributes: the Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. § 505) does not cover right of publicity claims; the Lanham Act's § 1117(a) exceptional-case attorney fees require a trademark or trade dress claim that does not exist for non-voice right of publicity misappropriation; the federal Right of Publicity Act (which has been proposed in Congress but not enacted as of 2026) does not provide attorney fee-shifting for deceased personality right of publicity claims. The absence of a federal attorney fee-shifting statute covering non-voice § 3344.1 claims means there is no federal no-multiplier ceiling (Dague) applicable to the non-voice components of the § 3344.1(a)(4) fee petition — only the California Ketchum analysis governs. Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122: the lodestar for a § 3344.1 contingency-taken case may be enhanced by a positive multiplier to account for the contingency risk — including the bilateral fee risk — at the DATE OF FIRST UNAUTHORIZED COMMERCIAL USE in the entertainment talent licensing agency's catalog management system.

Ketchum/Dague split for Lanham Act § 43(a) voice misappropriation components. For unauthorized commercial uses of a deceased personality's VOICE — voice synthesis using AI or generative models trained on archive recordings, sound-alike performer imitation designed to evoke the deceased personality's distinctive vocal characteristics, archival audio repurposing in new commercial advertising contexts, and AI voice cloning that produces new commercial voice performances in the deceased personality's distinctive vocal style — the commercial user defendant may face concurrent liability under both § 3344.1(a)(2) (state right of publicity — voice) and Lanham Act § 43(a) 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) (federal false endorsement — distinctive voice). Waits v. Frito-Lay, Inc., 978 F.2d 1093 (9th Cir. 1992) established that a distinctive voice is a protectable trade identity under Lanham Act § 43(a): when an advertiser employs a performer to imitate Tom Waits' distinctive voice in a Frito-Lay radio commercial, causing consumers to believe that Tom Waits had endorsed the product, the advertiser faced both state right of publicity liability and federal § 43(a) false endorsement liability. For deceased personalities, the same Waits v. Frito-Lay analysis applies: a commercial user who employs AI voice cloning technology to synthesize a new voice performance in a deceased personality's distinctive vocal style for use in commercial advertising faces liability under both § 3344.1(a)(2) (state) and § 43(a) (federal) if the synthesis is likely to cause consumer confusion about endorsement. The Lanham Act § 43(a) attorney fee provision — 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a), which awards attorney fees to the prevailing party in exceptional trademark or trade identity cases — is a federal fee-shifting statute subject to City of Burlington v. Dague (1992) 505 U.S. 557's no-contingency-multiplier ceiling. For the VOICE MISAPPROPRIATION components of a § 3344.1 fee petition that overlap with a Lanham Act § 43(a) false endorsement cause of action, the attorney fee petition requires a Ketchum/Dague split: (i) Ketchum-eligible hours on § 3344.1(a)(2)-only voice claims (if the voice claim proceeds under § 3344.1 alone without a federal § 43(a) cause of action — for example, where the unauthorized voice use involved archival audio repurposing without a sound-alike or synthesis element that creates consumer confusion about endorsement — the voice components may be pure Ketchum eligible); (ii) Dague-constrained hours on Lanham Act § 43(a)-overlapping voice misappropriation components (where the voice synthesis or sound-alike imitation also supports a § 43(a) false endorsement claim, the attorney fee petition for those § 43(a)-overlapping hours is subject to the Dague no-multiplier ceiling). The Hensley lodestar must segregate between Ketchum-eligible non-voice hours and non-voice § 3344.1-only voice hours (pure Ketchum) vs. Dague-constrained § 43(a)-overlapping voice misappropriation hours in the same fee petition.

AI voice cloning and the evolving Waits v. Frito-Lay analysis for deceased personalities. The most rapidly expanding category of § 3344.1(a)(2) voice misappropriation in 2025–2026 is AI voice cloning — commercial applications that use generative AI models trained on archive recordings of a deceased personality's voice to synthesize new voice performances in the deceased personality's distinctive vocal style for commercial advertising use. AI voice cloning of deceased personalities for commercial advertising creates a Waits v. Frito-Lay § 43(a) false endorsement analysis that is more complex than the original sound-alike scenario because: (a) the AI-synthesized voice is not a human performer imitating the deceased personality, but a machine-generated voice that the listener cannot distinguish from the original; (b) the consumer confusion question under § 43(a) is not whether a reasonable consumer would mistake the sound-alike performer for the deceased personality, but whether a reasonable consumer would believe that the estate authorized the use of the deceased personality's voice in the commercial — a different and arguably stronger false endorsement theory; (c) the AI voice cloning process itself may involve reproduction of copyrighted archival recordings as training data, creating Copyright Act § 106 reproduction right claims that run parallel to the § 3344.1(a)(2) right of publicity claim and the § 43(a) false endorsement claim, requiring a three-way Hensley lodestar segregation between the § 3344.1 right of publicity hours (eligible for Ketchum/Dague analysis), the Copyright Act § 106 reproduction claim hours (eligible for 17 U.S.C. § 505 attorney fees), and any § 43(a) overlapping hours. The DATE OF FIRST UNAUTHORIZED COMMERCIAL USE in the entertainment talent licensing agency's catalog management system remains the primary Welch anchor for all three parallel claims — the date on which the agency's monitoring system first detected the commercial use of the AI-synthesized voice in advertising is the anchor date from which all three parallel fee petition components begin their Hensley lodestar calculation. PLCM Group Inc. v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084. Arithmetic: 5 clients × 2 calls × 44 min × 55% = 4.03 hrs = $1,210–$2,017/year at $300–$500/hr.

How ClaimHour fits California Civ. Code § 3344.1 deceased personality right of publicity attorney fee practice

California § 3344.1 deceased personality right of publicity solos billing hourly on § 3344.1(a)(4) bilateral attorney fees — with § 3344.1(a)(1)–(5) protected attribute analysis and successor in interest probate standing advisory calls arriving at the DATE OF FIRST UNAUTHORIZED COMMERCIAL USE OF DECEASED PERSONALITY'S NAME, VOICE, SIGNATURE, PHOTOGRAPH, OR LIKENESS on the entertainment talent licensing agency's own institutional catalog management system calendar (CMG Worldwide, Authentic Brands Group, Iconic Entertainments, BDE Ventures, Greenlight Rights — the ONLY primary anchor in the fee-petition-mechanics series in an ENTERTAINMENT TALENT LICENSING AGENCY'S OWN CATALOG MANAGEMENT SYSTEM DATE entirely outside estate successor-plaintiff attorney's scheduling control; § 3344.1(a)(4) mandatory bilateral attorney fees — bilateral fee risk at inception is itself a Ketchum contingency factor; Lanham Act § 43(a) false endorsement for voice misappropriation [Waits v. Frito-Lay, 978 F.2d 1093 (9th Cir. 1992)] → Ketchum/Dague split for voice components; § 3344.1-only name/signature/photograph/likeness components → pure Ketchum no Dague; probate court CRC 7.550 successor in interest designation required; § 3344.1(b) Secretary of State registration obligation; DISTINCT from § 3344 tier_yy living personality), entertainment talent licensing agency catalog management system calendar advisory calls arriving when CMG Worldwide, ABG, Iconic Entertainments, BDE Ventures, or Greenlight Rights records a new unauthorized use detection event on the agency's own institutional calendar entirely outside the estate attorney's scheduling control, probate court CRC 7.550 successor in interest designation calendar advisory calls arriving when the probate court sets hearing dates on its own institutional docket calendar entirely outside the plaintiff attorney's scheduling control, SAG-AFTRA estate licensing audit calendar advisory calls arriving when SAG-AFTRA's IPRDF audit team schedules audits on SAG-AFTRA's own institutional calendar entirely outside the estate attorney's scheduling control, and § 3344.1(a)(4) bilateral fee petition with Ketchum multiplier for non-voice name/signature/photograph/likeness components and Ketchum/Dague split for Lanham Act § 43(a) voice misappropriation components and bilateral fee risk as Ketchum contingency factor advisory calls arriving when the voice/non-voice classification requires Hensley segregation between pure-Ketchum-eligible non-voice components and Dague-constrained § 43(a)-overlapping voice misappropriation components — and if your § 3344.1(a)(4) bilateral fee petition documentation must satisfy the Hensley contemporaneous-record standard from the DATE OF FIRST UNAUTHORIZED COMMERCIAL USE in the entertainment talent licensing agency's own catalog management system through § 3344.1(a)(1)–(5) attribute classification, § 3344.1(b) Secretary of State registration compliance, probate court CRC 7.550 successor in interest designation, entertainment talent licensing agency catalog management system record analysis, SAG-AFTRA IPRDF audit coordination, civil complaint, commercial user defendant discovery, voice/non-voice Ketchum/Dague split analysis, and § 3344.1(a)(4) bilateral mandatory fee petition, ClaimHour was built for that gap.

Get early access