Every big character starts as a sketch, and sketches start somewhere. In May, actress Q'orianka Kilcher sued James Cameron, Disney and others in federal court in Los Angeles. She says her face, from when she played Pocahontas at 14 in The New World, was the source for Neytiri, the Na'vi heroine of Avatar.
Part of her case rests on Cameron's own words. In a 2024 interview, according to the court, he pointed to an early Neytiri drawing and talked about its design. Kilcher says that interview made the link public. Cameron and the other defendants dispute her claims, and nothing here decides who's right about the design.
She pleaded eight claims. Only one is federal: false endorsement under the Lanham Act, the federal trademark law. That's the one the defendants attacked first, and on September 18, Judge Wesley Hsu dismissed it, with permission to try again. She did. Kilcher filed an amended complaint on September 28, and the court set a new hearing for November 13.
Takeaway #1: Under the Lanham Act, expressive works get a higher bar
FROM THE RULING
"The Complaint identifies no explicit statement in the films representing that Plaintiff sponsored, endorsed, approved or was affiliated with Avatar. Rather, Plaintiff alleges that consumers may infer such an association after learning that her likeness allegedly served as the design foundation for Neytiri."
What it means for you. A false-endorsement claim says, in effect, "people think I signed off on this, and I didn't." For films and other expressive works, courts in the Ninth Circuit apply what's called the Rogers test. If the use is artistically relevant to the work, and Kilcher conceded it was, the claim survives only if the defendant made an "explicit indication, overt claim, or explicit misstatement" about her relationship to the work.
An inference isn't enough, even one that confuses people. And here's the twist I'd underline. The court noted the interview's connection between her face and the design "is not alleged to be false." Telling the truth about where an idea came from isn't the same as falsely claiming someone endorsed the result.
The court also applied the same reasoning to trailers and promotional stills, which it treated as tied to the films.
Your move. If you're a performer, the federal false-endorsement route is narrow for likeness used inside a film or show. Your stronger protection is usually a contract signed before the camera rolls.
Takeaway #2: Merchandise is a different question
FROM THE RULING
"Any amended complaint must plausibly allege how Plaintiff's own asserted identity or identifying characteristic, as distinct from the Neytiri character or Avatar branding, is used in a manner that falsely or misleadingly communicates Plaintiff's affiliation, connection, association, sponsorship or approval."
What it means for you. This is the door left open. Rogers doesn't protect a use that works as a brand, a source identifier, under the Supreme Court's 2023 Jack Daniel's decision. Kilcher pointed to merchandise and theme parks. The court said listing more Neytiri products wouldn't fix things. She'd have to show her own identity, separate from the character, doing the selling.
That's a hard thing to plead about a blue alien. The devil is in the details, and the detail is whose face the customer thinks they're buying.
Two other rulings matter. The court said the defendants' timing defense, that she waited too long, couldn't end the case at this early stage. And it rejected the idea that Kilcher is the legal "origin" of the films just because her features allegedly inspired a design.
Her seven state-law claims, including California's statutory right of publicity in Civil Code §3344, are on hold. The defendants also filed an anti-SLAPP motion to strike them, and the court reserved ruling. If the federal claim drops out for good, the judge may decline to keep the state claims in federal court at all.
Your move. Studios and designers, document your reference materials and where they came from. Performers, read the likeness grant in every contract, including the ones from when you were a kid. Ask who can use your face as reference, and for what.
Sample wording (our illustration): "Producer may not use Performer's likeness as reference material for any character, avatar or digital asset other than Performer's own role without Performer's separate written consent."
And always remember, don't sign it till you read it, my friends.
General information, not legal advice. Reading this doesn't create an attorney-client relationship. Talk to your own lawyer about your likeness rights.
Sources
- Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, Kilcher v. Cameron, No. 2:26-cv-04832-WLH-DSR (C.D. Cal.), Dkt. 52, filed Sept 21, 2026 (via CourtListener)
- Complaint, Kilcher v. Cameron, Dkt. 1, filed May 5, 2026 (via CourtListener)
- Docket, Kilcher v. Cameron, No. 2:26-cv-04832 (CourtListener)
