The use of a real person’s likeness within a broader creative work is permissible, according to a California Court of Appeal opinion that reaffirms the broad shield of First Amendment protection for artistic expression. On March 20, 2026, the appellate court reversed the Superior Court of Los Angeles County’s denial of Netflix’s anti-SLAPP motion in Hara v. Netflix and directed that the motion be granted.
In Hara, the plaintiff is an individual who performs in West Hollywood as a drag queen named Vicky Vox. One episode of Netflix’s 10-episode series “Q-Force” includes a short scene depicting five drag queens (one of whom allegedly resembles Vox) conducting a union meeting in a bar in West Hollywood. Vox alleges that this drag queen character appropriated her likeness and violated her rights of publicity. Netflix filed an anti-SLAPP motion, arguing that “Q-Force” is constitutionally protected speech and that Vox did not demonstrate that the claims had merit. The lower court agreed that “Q-Force” is protected speech but denied the motion, finding that the plaintiff had established a prima facie showing that the claims had merit.
Netflix appealed, arguing that the lower court erred in finding merit because Vox’s alleged likeness is merely one part of the larger “Q-Force” story, which is protected by the First Amendment. The appellate court agreed with Netflix and held that the character’s fleeting appearance in one episode of the series did not give rise to liability.
In California, a key question in free speech determinations is whether the person’s likeness is one of the raw materials from which the work is synthesized or if it is the sum and substance of the work. If the likeness is one of the raw materials, the use is more likely to be protected. Here, the drag queens were effectively included as a part of the setting, since they made the scene in a West Hollywood bar feel more real and complete. They were not central to the story, and they, along with countless other elements, were transformed into the television series. Thus, the court held that the one drag queen character at issue was one of the many raw materials that went into creating “Q-Force,” which is a constitutionally protected creative work.
If the question of whether the use is a “raw material” is a close call, California courts consider whether the marketability and economic value of the work in question derive primarily from the fame of the person whose likeness is being used. Here, the character at issue appeared in a teaser trailer and in less than one minute of one episode of the 10-episode series. And even in the teaser trailer, the court found it clear that the character was not central to the story. The court further found that, even if it was a close call deciding that the character was a “raw material,” the marketability and value of the television series did not derive primarily from the inclusion of a drag queen character resembling Vicky Vox because the character appeared in less than one minute of one episode.
The court ordered that the motion to strike be granted, so these claims against Netflix will be stricken and dismissed from the complaint.
This decision may give greater protections to video game developers. The court’s analysis affirms that creators have creative license to build worlds or characters that reference or incorporate reality. A creator’s use of a real person’s likeness is not necessarily a misappropriation. Use of a real person’s likeness is less likely to violate that person’s right of publicity if it is transformed into part of a larger expressive work, like a video game, which is protected by the First Amendment.
In many modern games, players encounter hundreds of non-playable characters (NPCs) that populate vast digital environments and make the in-game world feel more real to players. Each of these characters is a small part of the much larger, much more complicated game. The Hara court’s reasoning suggests that a mere resemblance between a game character and a real person is unlikely to give rise to a viable right of publicity claim, especially where the character has no meaningful role in the game’s broader narrative or gameplay. The creative work is the video game, and these incidental characters are part of the setting, comparable to furniture (walking furniture with limited dialogue options, but furniture nonetheless). They enhance the game’s realism, but any one character’s likeness is one of countless elements that come together and are transformed into the final video game.
The Hara decision underscores that game developers may draw inspiration from the real world to enrich creative expression without automatically triggering liability. If an individual’s likeness is integrated into a broader creative work and is thus transformed, especially where the work’s market value derives from storytelling, artistry, gameplay, or a studio’s reputation, the use is more likely to fall within First Amendment protection.