Indy IP firm loses Monroe publicity rights case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
A federal judge's decision in California this week represents a significant legal loss for an Indianapolis intellectual property firm relating to the publicity rights of Marilyn Monroe.

U.S. District Judge Margaret M. Morrow of the Central District of California in Los Angeles ruled Monday that Marilyn Monroe LLC and Indianapolis-based CMG Worldwide don't own rights of publicity, and that a studio and licensing company have the right to market and license images of the famous actress.

The judge's action reversed a ruling from last year, culminating a long-running handful of suits that had been consolidated from various jurisdictions, including the Southern District of Indiana.

The instant case was transferred and consolidated in the California District Court in 2005 to decide whether the company owned exclusive right to control the use of Monroe's image and likeness for commercial uses. The litigation involved photographers Milton H. Greene and Tom Kelley, whose photos helped catapult Monroe to stardom and include a nude shot of her on a red velvet cloth that went on to launch Playboy magazine.

When she died in 1962, neither of the states where she resided - New York or California - recognized a descendible postmortem publicity right. The court ruled last year that her rights didn't extend to heirs or beneficiaries, but a law change in October gave the right of publicity to those who'd died before 1985 if they were domiciled there.

That law change warranted a second look from Judge Morrow, who decided that Monroe wasn't domiciled in California. She wrote in a 62-page decision that CMG and MMLLC had been inconsistent in their arguments that Monroe was domiciled in California when she died, which went against claims made decades ago for what she described as tax-evasion purposes.

The judge applied judicial estoppel to prevent parties from changing positions they'd previously argued and accused the plaintiffs of "attempting to play fast and loose with the courts."

An Indianapolis attorney formerly representing CMG and who's handled Monroe litigation in the past said this ruling is disappointing from both an iconic and legal standpoint.

"Marilyn Monroe is one of the heavyweight celebrities in the licensing business and she has generated significant licensing revenues, but the court has essentially unleashed the right of publicity for Marilyn to the public domain," said Jonathan Polak, who leads the intellectual property group at law firm Sommer Barnard. "This is a sad day for those of us practicing in this area."

The ruling seems unfair that lawyers making statements in the 1960s while dealing with tax issues following Monroe's death could unknowingly undo the unrelated intellectual property rights of the celebrity decades later, Polak said.

He hopes the decision will be appealed.

This is the second loss for CMG in a year; a New York federal judge made a similar ruling in May 2007 that Monroe didn't have any postmortem right of publicity and that a photographer's world-renowned images of the actress didn't violate any rights.

Figures from 2007 show that Monroe has raked in more than $30 million in licensing fees in the last dozen years for everything from TV commercials to T-shirts - with roughly 25 percent of that windfall landing in CMG coffers.

CMG chief executive officer Mark Roesler was out of town and couldn't be reached Wednesday for comment.

But Polak remained optimistic for the IP company.

"All is not lost for the Monroe estate," he said. "It still owns significant and valuable trademark rights that have not yet been adjudicated in pending lawsuits, and those rights are not subject to issues of domicile or judicial estoppel."

In a news release, a licensing group for the Archives of Milton H. Greene and Tom Kelley Studios noted it is creating a separate licensing group called Marilyn Monroe Licensing Group, a division of Legends Licensing LLC and part of Pacific Licensing, that will serve as a "one-stop shop" for Monroe images and will also represent other content providers for commercially usable images of Monroe.

Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. This is ridiculous. Most JDs not practicing law don't know squat to justify calling themselves a lawyer. Maybe they should try visiting the inside of a courtroom before they go around calling themselves lawyers. This kind of promotional BS just increases the volume of people with JDs that are underqualified thereby dragging all the rest of us down likewise.

  2. I think it is safe to say that those Hoosier's with the most confidence in the Indiana judicial system are those Hoosier's who have never had the displeasure of dealing with the Hoosier court system.

  3. I have an open CHINS case I failed a urine screen I have since got clean completed IOP classes now in after care passed home inspection my x sister in law has my children I still don't even have unsupervised when I have been clean for over 4 months my x sister wants to keep the lids for good n has my case working with her I just discovered n have proof that at one of my hearing dcs case worker stated in court to the judge that a screen was dirty which caused me not to have unsupervised this was at the beginning two weeks after my initial screen I thought the weed could have still been in my system was upset because they were suppose to check levels n see if it was going down since this was only a few weeks after initial instead they said dirty I recently requested all of my screens from redwood because I take prescriptions that will show up n I was having my doctor look at levels to verify that matched what I was prescripted because dcs case worker accused me of abuseing when I got my screens I found out that screen I took that dcs case worker stated in court to judge that caused me to not get granted unsupervised was actually negative what can I do about this this is a serious issue saying a parent failed a screen in court to judge when they didn't please advise

  4. I have a degree at law, recent MS in regulatory studies. Licensed in KS, admitted b4 S& 7th circuit, but not to Indiana bar due to political correctness. Blacklisted, nearly unemployable due to hostile state action. Big Idea: Headwinds can overcome, esp for those not within the contours of the bell curve, the Lego Movie happiness set forth above. That said, even without the blacklisting for holding ideas unacceptable to the Glorious State, I think the idea presented above that a law degree open many vistas other than being a galley slave to elitist lawyers is pretty much laughable. (Did the law professors of Indiana pay for this to be published?)

  5. Joe, you might want to do some reading on the fate of Hoosier whistleblowers before you get your expectations raised up.