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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  2. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  3. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

  4. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

  5. This article proved very enlightening. Right ahead of sitting the LSAT for the first time, I felt a sense of relief that a score of 141 was admitted to an Indiana Law School and did well under unique circumstances. While my GPA is currently 3.91 I fear standardized testing and hope that I too will get a good enough grade for acceptance here at home. Thanks so much for this informative post.

ADVERTISEMENT