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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT