With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Admittedly, these previous non-celebrity plaintiffs have typically been models, entertainers, or other professionals who have cultivated some commercially exploitable value through their own endeavors. Nevertheless, the Court finds nothing requiring that a plaintiffs commercially exploitable value be a result of his own talents or efforts in order to state a claim for damages under § 3344. See White v. Samsung Elees, of Am., Inc., 971 F.2d 1395, 1399 (9th Cir.1992) (“Television and other media create marketable celebrity identity value.... The law protects the celebrity’s sole right to exploit this value whether the celebrity has achieved her fame out of rare ability, dumb luck, or a combination thereof.” (emphasis added)); see also Motschenbacher, 498 F.2d at 825 n. 11 (<HOLDING>). In a society dominated by reality television

A: holding that the defendants use of a models likeness in connection with the packaging and promotion of its hair care product violated the right of publicity
B: recognizing protection against appropriation for the defendants advantage of the plaintiffs name or likeness
C: holding determination of property value in case to decide if assessed value was excessive is not a liquidated demand where only evidence of property value was the conclusory allegation of value in plaintiffs unsworn petition
D: recognizing that the act of exploitation may itself imbue someones likeness with commercial value
D.