Fee petition mechanics · Updated July 2026
California deceased person's right of publicity attorney fee petition mechanics: date of first unauthorized commercial use as primary Welch anchor, Civ. Code § 3344.1(a)(4) mandatory attorney fees to prevailing plaintiff
California post-mortem right of publicity enforcement (Civ. Code § 3344.1 — California Celebrity Rights Act, enacted 1985, extended to 70 years post-death by SB 209, 2007; § 3344.1(a)(1): 'Any person who uses 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 from the person or persons specified in subdivision (c), shall be liable for any damages sustained by the person or persons injured as a result thereof' — mandatory prohibition on unauthorized commercial exploitation of deceased personality identity for 70 years post-death; § 3344.1(b): 'deceased personality' means any natural person whose name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness has commercial value at the time of his or her death; § 3344.1(a)(4): 'Any person who violates subdivision (a) shall be required to pay... attorney's fees and costs' — mandatory attorney fees to prevailing plaintiff; § 3344.1(c): consent must come from the surviving spouse, children, grandchildren, or, if none of those, parents, or from a trustee or person, firm, or corporation authorized in writing by the personality during lifetime; § 3344.1(h): the rights recognized under this section are property rights, freely transferable in whole or in part by contract or by means of a trust or testamentary documents; ONLY page in fee-petition-mechanics series with primary Welch anchor in an ENTERTAINMENT TALENT LICENSING AGENCY'S OWN CATALOG MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (CMG Worldwide, Authentic Brands Group, Iconic Entertainments, BDE Ventures, Greenlight Rights — talent estate licensing calendars record unauthorized commercial use detection events entirely outside successor attorney's scheduling control); DISTINCT from § 3344 [tier_yy — living person's right of publicity; § 3344 requires consent from the individual; § 3344.1 requires consent from the successor in interest, requiring probate court successor designation calendar]; Lanham Act § 43(a) 15 U.S.C. § 1125 false endorsement parallel for voice misappropriation and persona overlap → Ketchum/Dague split required for Lanham Act-overlapping components; Ketchum v. Moses 24 Cal.4th 1122 (2001); PLCM Group Inc. v. Drexler 22 Cal.4th 1084 (2000); Hensley v. Eckerhart 461 U.S. 424 (1983) lodestar from DATE OF FIRST UNAUTHORIZED COMMERCIAL USE OF DECEASED PERSONALITY'S NAME, VOICE, SIGNATURE, PHOTOGRAPH, OR LIKENESS; Missouri v. Jenkins 491 U.S. 274 (1989) fees-on-fees) — solos billing hourly on mandatory attorney fees — in actions where the primary Welch temporal anchor is the DATE OF FIRST UNAUTHORIZED COMMERCIAL USE OF THE DECEASED PERSONALITY'S NAME, VOICE, SIGNATURE, PHOTOGRAPH, OR LIKENESS (the ONLY primary anchor in the fee-petition-mechanics series in an entertainment talent licensing agency's own catalog management system calendar; CMG Worldwide, Authentic Brands Group, Iconic Entertainments, BDE Ventures each maintain institutional talent estate licensing management calendars recording unauthorized commercial use detection dates entirely outside successor attorney's scheduling control; the successor in interest designation itself is in the probate court's own docket calendar, requiring CRC 7.550 petition under § 3344.1(b) — an additional external institutional calendar constraint; DISTINCT from § 3344 [tier_yy — living person's right of publicity; § 3344 consent from individual; § 3344.1 consent from successor in interest requiring probate calendar]; Lanham Act § 43(a) false endorsement parallel for voice misappropriation and persona overlap → Ketchum/Dague split for Lanham Act-overlapping components; pure Ketchum for § 3344.1-only name and signature misappropriation components with no federal parallel) — generate three billing gaps driven by § 3344.1 unauthorized commercial use documentation and successor in interest standing analysis advisory calls, the concurrent estate management and SAG-AFTRA estate licensing and Copyright Office registration calendar advisory calls on external institutional calendars entirely outside successor attorney control, and the § 3344.1(a)(4) attorney fee petition and Ketchum/Dague split advisory calls: § 3344.1 unauthorized commercial use documentation and successor in interest standing analysis advisory calls (7 clients × 2 calls × 42 min × 55% untracked ≈ 5.39 hrs = $1,617–$2,695/year at $300–$500/hr), estate management and SAG-AFTRA estate licensing calendar advisory and Copyright Office registration calendar advisory (6 clients × 3 calls × 44 min × 55% ≈ 7.26 hrs = $2,178–$3,630/year), and § 3344.1(a)(4) attorney fee petition and Ketchum/Dague split advisory calls (5 clients × 2 calls × 44 min × 55% ≈ 4.03 hrs = $1,210–$2,017/year). For a solo California post-mortem right of publicity practice, the annual billing gap from advisory call underlogging is $5,005–$8,342.
TL;DR
ClaimHour captures every § 3344.1 unauthorized commercial use documentation and successor in interest standing analysis advisory call that starts the § 3344.1(a)(4) fee documentation period from the DATE OF FIRST UNAUTHORIZED COMMERCIAL USE OF THE DECEASED PERSONALITY'S NAME, VOICE, SIGNATURE, PHOTOGRAPH, OR LIKENESS (in the entertainment talent licensing agency's own CMG Worldwide/Authentic Brands Group/Iconic Entertainments/BDE Ventures catalog management system calendar — ONLY anchor in series in talent estate licensing agency's own institutional catalog calendar; successor in interest designation in probate court's own CRC 7.550 docket calendar; § 3344.1(a)(4) mandatory attorney fees to prevailing plaintiff; Lanham Act § 43(a) false endorsement parallel for voice misappropriation → Ketchum/Dague split for Lanham Act-overlapping components; pure Ketchum for § 3344.1-only name/signature components; DISTINCT from § 3344 [tier_yy — living person]), every concurrent estate management and SAG-AFTRA estate licensing calendar advisory and Copyright Office registration calendar advisory on external institutional calendars entirely outside the attorney's scheduling control, and every § 3344.1(a)(4) attorney fee petition and Ketchum/Dague split advisory call on the post-judgment fee petition calendar — passively, no timer, no audio, no call contents. $29–$59/mo. No PMS required.
§ 3344.1 unauthorized commercial use documentation and successor in interest standing analysis: calls on the deceased personality's talent estate licensing agency's own catalog management system calendar
The DATE OF FIRST UNAUTHORIZED COMMERCIAL USE OF THE DECEASED PERSONALITY'S NAME, VOICE, SIGNATURE, PHOTOGRAPH, OR LIKENESS is the primary Welch temporal anchor for § 3344.1(a)(4) attorney fee billing documentation in a Civ. Code § 3344.1 post-mortem right of publicity action. This date is in an entertainment talent licensing agency's own catalog management system, a commercial content management platform, or the defendant's own marketing deployment calendar — each recording the date of first unauthorized commercial use on an institutional calendar entirely outside the successor in interest's attorney's scheduling control. The Hensley lodestar starts from this date for five reasons: (1) entertainment talent licensing agencies maintain institutional catalog management calendars that record unauthorized commercial use detection events: CMG Worldwide's talent catalog management system, Authentic Brands Group's brand management platform, Iconic Entertainments' rights management database, BDE Ventures' estate licensing calendar, and Greenlight Rights' personality license management system each record the dates on which new unauthorized commercial uses are detected, reported, or investigated — these detection dates are on the agency's own institutional calendar entirely outside successor attorney's scheduling control; (2) the defendant's own content management system records the date of first unauthorized deployment: if the unauthorized use is in advertising, the advertiser's campaign management platform (Google Campaign Manager, Meta Ads Manager, Salesforce Marketing Cloud, Adobe Workfront) records the campaign launch date — the first date on which the unauthorized commercial use was live in market — on the advertiser's own institutional campaign calendar entirely outside successor attorney's scheduling control; (3) the probate court's own docket calendar records the successor in interest designation date: § 3344.1(b) requires a court designation of successor in interest if the deceased personality did not designate one in writing during lifetime — the CRC 7.550 petition for appointment of successor in interest is filed in the probate court's own docket calendar and set for hearing on the probate court's own institutional scheduling calendar entirely outside successor attorney's scheduling control; (4) the defendant's own digital asset management system records the acquisition and deployment date of the unauthorized content: Getty Images Digital Asset Management System, AP Newsroom content calendar, Shutterstock contributor upload calendar — if the defendant sourced the unauthorized commercial content from a stock photography, archive footage, or digital media provider, the provider's own institutional content delivery calendar records the content delivery date entirely outside successor attorney's scheduling control; (5) the estate's own licensing records serve as the reference baseline: the estate management company's current licensee database records all authorized uses and authorization dates — any commercial use appearing in the market without a matching authorization date in the estate management company's own institutional licensing calendar is the baseline for identifying the first unauthorized use date.
Three initial advisory call types generate untracked billing from the unauthorized use date: (1) § 3344.1 unauthorized commercial use identification and successor in interest standing analysis advisory — arrives when successor retains § 3344.1 counsel (§ 3344.1 eligibility analysis: [a] identify the deceased personality: § 3344.1(b) defines 'deceased personality' as a natural person who has been dead more than zero years and whose name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness has commercial value — confirm the personality has been dead fewer than 70 years (§ 3344.1(h) rights expire 70 years post-death, subject to Astaire Celebrity Rights Act extension arguments); [b] identify the successor in interest: § 3344.1(c) prescribes the successor hierarchy (surviving spouse → children → grandchildren → parents → court-appointed successor); confirm the client has standing through probate court appointment if no written designation by the deceased personality; [c] identify the first unauthorized commercial use date: the specific date on which the defendant first used the deceased personality's name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness in commerce without the successor's consent — in the defendant's own marketing content management system, campaign deployment calendar, or product release schedule entirely outside successor attorney's scheduling control; [d] confirm the use is 'for purposes of advertising or selling': § 3344.1(a)(1) requires the use be for commercial purposes — purely artistic or editorial uses may not qualify; the commercial purpose determination is made as of the date of first use on the defendant's own institutional content calendar; [e] Lanham Act § 43(a) false endorsement analysis: if the unauthorized use is of the personality's voice or distinctive persona in a manner that implies endorsement of a product or service, a concurrent Lanham Act § 43(a) false endorsement claim may apply — Waits v. Frito-Lay 978 F.2d 1093 (9th Cir. 1992) recognized voice misappropriation as actionable under § 43(a) → Ketchum/Dague split required for Lanham Act-overlapping components; 42–48 min per call); (2) estate management licensing records and unauthorized use scope documentation advisory — arrives when the scope of unauthorized commercial use requires full investigation (unauthorized use scope analysis: [a] estate management company's licensing database: the estate management firm (CMG Worldwide, Authentic Brands Group, Iconic Entertainments, BDE Ventures) maintains a current authorized licensee database recording all active license agreements, license durations, and licensed product categories — any commercial use not appearing in the current licensee database is potentially unauthorized; the database is on the estate manager's own institutional calendar and must be obtained through authorization from the successor in interest; [b] defendant's product line and advertising campaign scope: the unauthorized commercial use may span multiple product categories, multiple advertisement placements, multiple geographic markets, and multiple time periods — each representing a separate § 3344.1 violation with a separate violation date in the defendant's own marketing deployment calendar; [c] SAG-AFTRA estate licensing records: if the deceased personality was a SAG-AFTRA performer, the union's estate licensing calendar records authorized vs. unauthorized use of the performer's recordings, images, and persona in commercial contexts — any SAG-AFTRA estate licensing conflict is on SAG-AFTRA's own institutional calendar; [d] Copyright Office registration verification: if the unauthorized commercial use involves a copyrighted photograph, film clip, or audio recording, the Copyright Office's registration records may reveal whether the deceased personality's estate holds copyright — the Copyright Office registration calendar is on the Copyright Office's own institutional calendar; [e] state trademark registration by estate: if the deceased personality's estate has registered the name or signature as a California state trademark (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 14200 et seq.), the California Secretary of State's trademark registration calendar records the registration date and renewal dates — institutional calendar outside successor attorney's scheduling control; 42–48 min per call); (3) SB 209 (2007) 70-year extension analysis and posthumous use rights scope advisory — arrives when the 70-year post-mortem term or § 3344.1(b) definitional threshold is contested (post-mortem term and definitional analysis: [a] SB 209 (2007) extended the post-mortem right of publicity from 50 to 70 years — if the deceased personality died between 1937 and 1957, the 70-year extension covers rights through 2007–2027; for personalities who died before 1935, California rights may have expired; [b] § 3344.1(b)(1)(B) 'commercial value at death' requirement: some deceased personalities had diminished commercial value at death but had their value revived by posthumous events (release of archival recordings, estate licensing programs, AI-generated content using likeness) — the 'commercial value at death' determination requires research into the personality's commercial status at the date of death, which is a fixed historical date outside successor attorney's control; [c] § 3344.1(n) exception for material identifiable consumer products: § 3344.1 does not apply to material that constitutes a 'material identifiable consumer product' if the deceased personality consented during lifetime — identifying whether a lifetime consent exists requires review of any licenses executed by the deceased personality during lifetime in whatever contractual management system the talent agency used; [d] § 3344.1(l) express identification requirement: the unauthorized use must 'readily identify' the deceased personality to the ordinary viewer — if the identity of the deceased personality is ambiguous or requires specific knowledge, the § 3344.1 claim may fail at the merits stage affecting fee petition strategy; 42–48 min per call). At 55% untracked: 7 clients × 2 calls × 42 min × 55% = 323.4 min / 60 = 5.39 hours = $1,617–$2,695/year at $300–$500/hr.
Estate management and SAG-AFTRA estate licensing calendar and Copyright Office deposit calendar: calls on external institutional calendars entirely outside attorney control
A California Civ. Code § 3344.1 post-mortem right of publicity case typically involves three concurrent external institutional calendars that run entirely outside the successor attorney's scheduling control: the estate management and licensing agency's own institutional calendar [CMG Worldwide, Authentic Brands Group, Iconic Entertainments, BDE Ventures, and Greenlight Rights each maintain institutional talent estate management calendars recording: (a) current authorized licensee list with license expiration dates — the estate management firm's own licensing calendar records when each authorized license expires and when unlicensed use detection events occur; (b) cease-and-desist response calendar: when the estate management firm sends C&D letters to unauthorized users, the response deadline calendar is on the estate firm's own institutional calendar entirely outside successor attorney's scheduling control; (c) probate court docket for successor in interest appointment: the CRC 7.550 petition hearing date, any objection deadlines, and the court's designation order date are all on the probate court's own institutional docket calendar entirely outside successor attorney's scheduling control; (d) licensing negotiation calendar: any licensing negotiation between the estate firm and a prospective licensee creates a separate external calendar constraint — offer dates, acceptance deadlines, and contract execution dates are on the contracting parties' own institutional calendars]; the SAG-AFTRA estate licensing and residual payment calendar [SAG-AFTRA's Residuals Department administers residual payments to estates of deceased SAG-AFTRA members on SAG-AFTRA's own institutional residual payment calendar; for unauthorized commercial uses of a deceased SAG-AFTRA performer's recorded performances, SAG-AFTRA's contract enforcement calendar tracks the date on which the union opens a grievance for unauthorized use of the deceased member's recordings — on SAG-AFTRA's own institutional calendar entirely outside successor attorney's scheduling control; SAG-AFTRA's Estate Licensing Program calendar records authorized vs. unauthorized commercial use approvals on SAG-AFTRA's own institutional calendar; for digital streaming exploitation, SAG-AFTRA's streaming residual schedule for estate beneficiaries under the Screen Actors Guild Basic Agreement runs on SAG-AFTRA's own institutional residual distribution calendar; AFTRA's historical estate records for radio, television, and digital performers are on AFTRA's own institutional calendar; Screen Actors Guild and AFTRA merger (2012) created a unified SAG-AFTRA estate administration calendar — the merged union's institutional calendar records estate licensing activity entirely outside successor attorney's scheduling control]; and the Copyright Office deposit and registration calendar [if the unauthorized commercial use involves a photograph, film clip, audio recording, or other copyrighted work in which the estate holds copyright, the Copyright Office registration calendar controls the timing of federal copyright infringement claims: (a) 17 U.S.C. § 411 requires copyright registration or preregistration before a civil action for copyright infringement may be filed; the Copyright Office's current processing timeline for registration applications runs on the Copyright Office's own institutional calendar and is entirely outside successor attorney's scheduling control; (b) the Copyright Office's effective registration date relates back to the date of application receipt — the date the Copyright Office received the registration application is on the Copyright Office's own institutional calendar; (c) if the unauthorized commercial use constitutes both a § 3344.1 right of publicity violation and a 17 U.S.C. § 106 copyright infringement, the federal copyright claim requires registration before filing — the Copyright Office registration calendar creates an external deadline constraint on when the federal infringement claim may be joined with the § 3344.1 state claim; (d) Lanham Act § 43(a) TTAB proceedings: if the defendant has filed a federal trademark application for any element of the deceased personality's name or persona, the USPTO's TTAB opposition calendar runs on the USPTO's own institutional docket calendar entirely outside successor attorney's scheduling control; TTAB opposition period (30 days after publication) is set by the USPTO on its own institutional calendar]. Ketchum v. Moses 24 Cal.4th 1122 (2001). PLCM Group Inc. v. Drexler 22 Cal.4th 1084 (2000). Hensley v. Eckerhart 461 U.S. 424 (1983) lodestar from DATE OF FIRST UNAUTHORIZED COMMERCIAL USE. Missouri v. Jenkins 491 U.S. 274 (1989) fees-on-fees.
Three concurrent external institutional calendar advisory call types generate untracked billing: (1) estate management company licensing database and unauthorized use scope calendar advisory — arrives when estate management records are needed to establish unauthorized use (estate management calendar analysis: [a] the estate management firm's current authorized licensee database records what commercial uses are authorized and when each license expires; any use not in the current licensee database is potentially unauthorized — but the licensee database is on the estate firm's own institutional calendar and requires authorization from the successor to access; [b] the estate firm's own unauthorized use detection and C&D calendar records when unauthorized uses were detected and when C&D letters were sent — the first detection date in the estate firm's own institutional calendar may establish the earliest known date of unauthorized use before the first unauthorized deployment date in the defendant's own campaign management system; [c] the probate court's own CRC 7.550 docket: the hearing date for successor in interest appointment, any continuances set by the court, and the order date are all on the probate court's own institutional docket calendar entirely outside successor attorney's scheduling control; [d] the estate firm's licensing negotiation calendar: if the defendant attempts to negotiate a retroactive license during litigation, the offer date and acceptance deadline are on the negotiating parties' own institutional calendars creating parallel settlement timeline constraints; 44–50 min per call); (2) SAG-AFTRA estate licensing calendar and AFTRA residual records advisory — arrives when the deceased personality was a SAG-AFTRA member whose recordings or performances are at issue (SAG-AFTRA calendar analysis: [a] SAG-AFTRA's Residuals Department residual payment calendar records whether the defendant production company is current on residual payments to the estate — a delinquent residual payment alongside unauthorized commercial use establishes a pattern of unauthorized exploitation on SAG-AFTRA's own institutional calendar; [b] SAG-AFTRA's estate licensing program calendar: the union's approval calendar for commercial uses of deceased member recordings runs entirely outside successor attorney's scheduling control; [c] SAG-AFTRA's MOVE (Member Online View of Earnings) system: estate beneficiaries can access the deceased member's historical earnings records — but the payment records are on SAG-AFTRA's own institutional calendar system; [d] for AI-generated commercial uses of a deceased performer's voice or likeness, SAG-AFTRA's AI/new media negotiation calendar for estate licensing in AI training and commercial synthesis runs on SAG-AFTRA's own institutional calendar — SAG-AFTRA's 2023 interim agreement on AI sets calendar-based compliance deadlines entirely outside successor attorney's scheduling control; 44–50 min per call); (3) Copyright Office deposit calendar and Lanham Act TTAB opposition calendar advisory — arrives when concurrent federal intellectual property claims are at issue (federal IP calendar analysis: [a] Copyright Office registration calendar: the Copyright Office's processing timeline for registration applications (currently 3–9 months for paper applications; 1–3 months for online applications) runs on the Copyright Office's own institutional calendar entirely outside successor attorney's scheduling control; the effective registration date relating back to application receipt means the application filing date is the critical external calendar anchor; [b] 17 U.S.C. § 412 limitations on statutory damages and attorney fees for infringements before registration: if the unauthorized commercial use began before copyright registration, only actual damages are available for pre-registration infringement under § 412 — the date of copyright registration relative to the date of first unauthorized use determines the damages horizon, making the Copyright Office's own registration calendar a fee petition calendar constraint; [c] Lanham Act TTAB opposition calendar: if the defendant has filed a federal trademark application for any element of the deceased personality's name or persona, the 30-day TTAB opposition period runs from the USPTO publication date — the USPTO publication and opposition deadline calendar is entirely outside successor attorney's scheduling control; [d] Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox 539 U.S. 23 (2003): Dastar limits Lanham Act § 43(a) reverse passing off claims involving creative works — if the unauthorized commercial use is of a motion picture or television program in which the deceased personality appeared, Dastar's limitation on Lanham Act coverage may affect the Ketchum/Dague split between federal and state fee components; 44–50 min per call). At 55% untracked: 6 clients × 3 calls × 44 min × 55% = 435.6 min / 60 = 7.26 hours = $2,178–$3,630/year at $300–$500/hr.
§ 3344.1(a)(4) attorney fee petition and Ketchum/Dague split: calls on the post-judgment fee petition calendar
Civ. Code § 3344.1(a)(4) provides mandatory attorney fees and costs to a prevailing plaintiff: 'Any person who violates subdivision (a) shall be required to pay... attorney's fees and costs.' The § 3344.1(a)(4) fee petition requires a Hensley lodestar from the DATE OF FIRST UNAUTHORIZED COMMERCIAL USE OF THE DECEASED PERSONALITY'S NAME, VOICE, SIGNATURE, PHOTOGRAPH, OR LIKENESS through unauthorized use documentation, successor in interest standing analysis, estate management calendar monitoring, SAG-AFTRA estate licensing calendar monitoring, Copyright Office registration monitoring, litigation, and fee petition. Because Lanham Act § 43(a) 15 U.S.C. § 1125 creates a concurrent federal claim for voice misappropriation and persona false endorsement, a Ketchum/Dague split is required for the Lanham Act-overlapping fee components: Dague no-multiplier constraint applies to attorney hours incurred on the Lanham Act § 43(a) false endorsement components (Dague v. City of Burlington 505 U.S. 557 (1992) holds that federal fee-shifting statutes do not permit multipliers beyond the lodestar; 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a) Lanham Act fee provision awards attorney fees in exceptional cases — Octane Fitness v. ICON Health & Fitness 572 U.S. 545 (2014) test applies); Ketchum five-factor multiplier is eligible for the pure § 3344.1 name, signature, and photograph misappropriation components with no Lanham Act parallel (no federal statute provides mandatory attorney fees for name or signature commercial misappropriation). Ketchum v. Moses 24 Cal.4th 1122 (2001). PLCM Group Inc. v. Drexler 22 Cal.4th 1084 (2000). Hensley v. Eckerhart 461 U.S. 424 (1983). Missouri v. Jenkins 491 U.S. 274 (1989) fees-on-fees.
Two § 3344.1(a)(4) post-judgment advisory call types generate untracked billing: (1) § 3344.1(a)(4) damages calculation and fee petition component assembly advisory — arrives at judgment (§ 3344.1 damages components: [a] actual damages: the successor in interest's lost licensing revenue — the royalty rate the estate would have charged for an authorized license of the same duration, scope, and distribution channel, calculated from the estate management company's current licensing rate schedule; [b] defendant's attributable profits: § 3344.1(a)(1) requires the defendant to disgorge profits 'attributable to the use and are not taken into account in computing the actual damages' — attribution requires the defendant's own profit and loss records for the product line or campaign employing the unauthorized use, which are in the defendant's own financial management system (Oracle NetSuite, SAP ERP, Workday Financial Management) on the defendant's own institutional financial calendar; [c] statutory minimum: § 3344.1(a)(4) provides $750 minimum per violation where no actual damages or profits are proved — each distinct unauthorized commercial use (separate product line, separate campaign, separate geographic market) is a separate violation with a separate $750 floor; [d] punitive damages: § 3344.1(a)(3) provides discretionary punitive damages for knowing and malicious violations; [e] § 3344.1(a)(4) fee petition Hensley lodestar from DATE OF FIRST UNAUTHORIZED COMMERCIAL USE: successor in interest standing analysis hours; unauthorized use identification and documentation hours; estate management company licensing database advisory hours; SAG-AFTRA estate licensing calendar monitoring hours; Copyright Office registration hours; Lanham Act § 43(a) concurrent claim analysis hours; litigation hours; fee petition hours; Missouri v. Jenkins fees-on-fees; 44–50 min per call); (2) Ketchum/Dague split analysis and five-factor multiplier advisory — arrives at fee petition (Ketchum/Dague split and five-factor analysis for § 3344.1(a)(4) fee petition: [a] claim component segregation: the successor attorney must segregate hours between § 3344.1 state claim components (pure Ketchum eligible — name, signature, photograph misappropriation with no federal parallel) and Lanham Act § 43(a) federal claim components (Dague-constrained — voice misappropriation and persona false endorsement with Lanham Act § 1117(a) parallel); if the claims arise from the same core facts, Hensley v. Eckerhart 461 U.S. 424 (1983) allows recovery of all hours on the common core but requires reduction for Dague-constrained federal hours; [b] Ketchum five factors for § 3344.1-only components: (i) 70-year post-mortem term and successor in interest identification uncertainty — the probate court CRC 7.550 successor appointment process creates uncertainty in successor standing at inception that is itself a Ketchum contingency factor; (ii) 'commercial value at death' threshold uncertainty — whether the deceased personality had sufficient commercial value at death to trigger § 3344.1(b) protection required investigation of historical commercial activity at an uncertain date; (iii) unauthorized use attribution and damages calculation uncertainty — attributing the defendant's profits from the entire product line or campaign to the specific unauthorized use of the deceased personality's identity required complex expert analysis at inception; (iv) § 3344.1(l) 'readily identifies' threshold uncertainty — whether the unauthorized use would be recognized as depicting the specific deceased personality by the ordinary viewer was contested at inception; (v) § 3344.1(a)(3) punitive damages uncertainty — whether the violation was 'knowing and malicious' required establishing the defendant's awareness of the § 3344.1 prohibition at the time of the unauthorized use; [c] Dague no-multiplier for Lanham Act § 43(a) hours: Octane Fitness 572 U.S. 545 (2014) 'exceptional case' standard for Lanham Act fee award — if the Lanham Act claim is not 'exceptional,' no federal attorney fees are awarded at all, making the Ketchum/Dague split a threshold determination before multiplier analysis; [d] PLCM Group 22 Cal.4th 1084 (2000) prevailing market rate for intellectual property litigation; Missouri v. Jenkins 491 U.S. 274 (1989) fees-on-fees; 44–50 min per call). At 55% untracked: 5 clients × 2 calls × 44 min × 55% = 242 min / 60 = 4.03 hours = $1,210–$2,017/year at $300–$500/hr.
How ClaimHour fits California § 3344.1 post-mortem right of publicity practice
California post-mortem right of publicity Civ. Code § 3344.1 solos billing hourly on mandatory attorney fees — with § 3344.1 unauthorized commercial use documentation and successor in interest standing analysis advisory calls arriving when successor retains § 3344.1 counsel (DATE OF FIRST UNAUTHORIZED COMMERCIAL USE OF DECEASED PERSONALITY'S NAME, VOICE, SIGNATURE, PHOTOGRAPH, OR LIKENESS = primary Welch anchor; in entertainment talent licensing agency's own CMG Worldwide/Authentic Brands Group/Iconic Entertainments/BDE Ventures/Greenlight Rights catalog management system calendar; § 3344.1(a)(4) mandatory attorney fees and costs to prevailing plaintiff; California Celebrity Rights Act, 70-year post-mortem term; Lanham Act § 43(a) false endorsement parallel for voice misappropriation → Ketchum/Dague split for Lanham Act-overlapping components; pure Ketchum for § 3344.1-only name/signature/photograph components; DISTINCT from § 3344 [tier_yy — living person right of publicity; § 3344.1 requires probate court successor in interest designation under CRC 7.550 — an additional external institutional calendar constraint not present in § 3344 living-person actions]), estate management company licensing database advisory calls on the estate firm's own institutional calendar entirely outside successor attorney's scheduling control, SAG-AFTRA estate licensing and residual calendar advisory calls on SAG-AFTRA's own institutional payment and licensing calendar entirely outside successor attorney's scheduling control, Copyright Office registration calendar advisory calls on the Copyright Office's own institutional registration calendar entirely outside successor attorney's scheduling control, Lanham Act TTAB opposition calendar advisory calls on the USPTO's own institutional docket calendar, and § 3344.1(a)(4) attorney fee petition and Ketchum/Dague split advisory calls arriving at judgment — and if your § 3344.1(a)(4) lodestar documentation must satisfy the Hensley contemporaneous-record standard from the DATE OF FIRST UNAUTHORIZED COMMERCIAL USE OF THE DECEASED PERSONALITY through unauthorized use identification, successor in interest standing analysis, estate management calendar monitoring, SAG-AFTRA licensing calendar monitoring, Copyright Office registration monitoring, Lanham Act § 43(a) concurrent claim monitoring, and § 3344.1(a)(4) damages, Ketchum/Dague split, and fee petition, ClaimHour was built for that gap.