ILNews

Fishers company loses Marilyn Monroe suit

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

An intellectual property licensing firm in Fishers has lost a federal lawsuit involving iconic images of the late actress Marilyn Monroe and the right of publicity.

U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon for the Southern District of New York in Manhattan ruled Sept. 2 against CMG Worldwide and its client Marilyn Monroe LLC, finding in favor of the heirs of New York photographer Sam Shaw regarding the question of who owns rights to photos. The judge granted summary judgment in favor of Shaw's trust, the Shaw Family Archives.

"We're obviously disappointed and don't like to be on this end of a court ruling, but it is what it is," said Mark Roesler, CMG's chief executive officer.

The photographer's trust sued CMG and Marilyn Monroe LLC in April 2005, alleging copyright infringement relating to three of Shaw's images that were used on merchandise without permission. The Indiana company argued that it owned Monroe's right of publicity and asked the court to decide that the late actress was a California resident when she died in 1962.

Monroe's home at the time would have determined the right of publicity based on laws in California and New York - California passed a law in 1984 granting celebrities a post-mortem right of publicity, while New York doesn't recognize that right. A suit originally filed in the Southern District of Indiana was consolidated in California to address that issue.

In March, U.S. District Judge Margaret M. Morrow of the Central District of California in Los Angeles ruled on the similar federal suit and determined that CMG and Marilyn Monroe LLC didn't own rights of publicity in that state because the famous actress didn't reside in that jurisdiction at the time of her death.

In deciding the issue, the court looked at claims Monroe's estate made that she resided in New York. The judge agreed based on an inheritance tax appraiser who'd filed a report on that topic.

Attorneys have appealed that California ruling to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, but in the meantime Judge McMahon in New York has determined the two cases and issues are virtually identical. The only difference is that it involves a different photographer. She supported her California colleague's finding and came to the same conclusion.

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's Roesler said this ruling and the one in California have no bearing on any of its other 250 clients encompassing hundreds of celebrities such as James Dean, Elvis Presley, and John Wayne.

"What this (N.Y.) court is trying to say is that because it says she was domiciled in New York, Marilyn Monroe LLC can't prevent photographers from using images they took of her. This is a narrow decision and we fully expect to appeal," Roesler said.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The fee increase would be livable except for the 11% increase in spending at the Disciplinary Commission. The Commission should be focused on true public harm rather than going on witch hunts against lawyers who dare to criticize judges.

  2. Marijuana is safer than alcohol. AT the time the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act was enacted all major pharmaceutical companies in the US sold marijuana products. 11 Presidents of the US have smoked marijuana. Smoking it does not increase the likelihood that you will get lung cancer. There are numerous reports of canabis oil killing many kinds of incurable cancer. (See Rick Simpson's Oil on the internet or facebook).

  3. The US has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prisoners. Far too many people are sentenced for far too many years in prison. Many of the federal prisoners are sentenced for marijuana violations. Marijuana is safer than alcohol.

  4. My daughter was married less than a week and her new hubbys picture was on tv for drugs and now I havent't seen my granddaughters since st patricks day. when my daughter left her marriage from her childrens Father she lived with me with my grand daughters and that was ok but I called her on the new hubby who is in jail and said didn't want this around my grandkids not unreasonable request and I get shut out for her mistake

  5. From the perspective of a practicing attorney, it sounds like this masters degree in law for non-attorneys will be useless to anyone who gets it. "However, Ted Waggoner, chair of the ISBA’s Legal Education Conclave, sees the potential for the degree program to actually help attorneys do their jobs better. He pointed to his practice at Peterson Waggoner & Perkins LLP in Rochester and how some clients ask their attorneys to do work, such as filling out insurance forms, that they could do themselves. Waggoner believes the individuals with the legal master’s degrees could do the routine, mundane business thus freeing the lawyers to do the substantive legal work." That is simply insulting to suggest that someone with a masters degree would work in a role that is subpar to even an administrative assistant. Even someone with just a certificate or associate's degree in paralegal studies would be overqualified to sit around helping clients fill out forms. Anyone who has a business background that they think would be enhanced by having a legal background will just go to law school, or get an MBA (which typically includes a business law class that gives a generic, broad overview of legal concepts). No business-savvy person would ever seriously consider this ridiculous master of law for non-lawyers degree. It reeks of desperation. The only people I see getting it are the ones who did not get into law school, who see the degree as something to add to their transcript in hopes of getting into a JD program down the road.

ADVERTISEMENT