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 new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  2. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  3. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  4. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?

  5. Research by William J Federer Chief Justice John Marshall commented May 9, 1833, on the pamphlet The Relation of Christianity to Civil Government in the United States written by Rev. Jasper Adams, President of the College of Charleston, South Carolina (The Papers of John Marshall, ed. Charles Hobson, Chapel Hill: Univ. of North Carolina Press, 2006, p, 278): "Reverend Sir, I am much indebted to you for the copy of your valuable sermon on the relation of Christianity to civil government preached before the convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church in Charleston, on the 13th of February last. I have read it with great attention and advantage. The documents annexed to the sermon certainly go far in sustaining the proposition which it is your purpose to establish. One great object of the colonial charters was avowedly the propagation of the Christian faith. Means have been employed to accomplish this object, and those means have been used by government..." John Marshall continued: "No person, I believe, questions the importance of religion to the happiness of man even during his existence in this world. It has at all times employed his most serious meditation, and had a decided influence on his conduct. The American population is entirely Christian, and with us, Christianity and Religion are identified. It would be strange, indeed, if with such a people, our institutions did not presuppose Christianity, and did not often refer to it, and exhibit relations with it. Legislation on the subject is admitted to require great delicacy, because freedom of conscience and respect for our religion both claim our most serious regard. You have allowed their full influence to both. With very great respect, I am Sir, your Obedt., J. Marshall."