ILNews

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.
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. On a related note, I offered the ICLU my cases against the BLE repeatedly, and sought their amici aid repeatedly as well. Crickets. Usually not even a response. I am guessing they do not do allegations of anti-Christian bias? No matter how glaring? I have posted on other links the amicus brief that did get filed (search this ezine, e.g., Kansas attorney), read the Thomas More Society brief to note what the ACLU ran from like vampires from garlic. An Examiner pledged to advance diversity and inclusion came right out on the record and demanded that I choose Man's law or God's law. I wonder, had I been asked to swear off Allah ... what result then, ICLU? Had I been found of bad character and fitness for advocating sexual deviance, what result then ICLU? Had I been lifetime banned for posting left of center statements denigrating the US Constitution, what result ICLU? Hey, we all know don't we? Rather Biased.

  2. It was mentioned in the article that there have been numerous CLE events to train attorneys on e-filing. I would like someone to provide a list of those events, because I have not seen any such events in east central Indiana, and since Hamilton County is one of the counties where e-filing is mandatory, one would expect some instruction in this area. Come on, people, give some instruction, not just applause!

  3. This law is troubling in two respects: First, why wasn't the law reviewed "with the intention of getting all the facts surrounding the legislation and its actual impact on the marketplace" BEFORE it was passed and signed? Seems a bit backwards to me (even acknowledging that this is the Indiana state legislature we're talking about. Second, what is it with the laws in this state that seem to create artificial monopolies in various industries? Besides this one, the other law that comes to mind is the legislation that governed the granting of licenses to firms that wanted to set up craft distilleries. The licensing was limited to only those entities that were already in the craft beer brewing business. Republicans in this state talk a big game when it comes to being "business friendly". They're friendly alright . . . to certain businesses.

  4. Gretchen, Asia, Roberto, Tonia, Shannon, Cheri, Nicholas, Sondra, Carey, Laura ... my heart breaks for you, reaching out in a forum in which you are ignored by a professional suffering through both compassion fatigue and the love of filthy lucre. Most if not all of you seek a warm blooded Hoosier attorney unafraid to take on the government and plead that government officials have acted unconstitutionally to try to save a family and/or rescue children in need and/or press individual rights against the Leviathan state. I know an attorney from Kansas who has taken such cases across the country, arguing before half of the federal courts of appeal and presenting cases to the US S.Ct. numerous times seeking cert. Unfortunately, due to his zeal for the constitutional rights of peasants and willingness to confront powerful government bureaucrats seemingly violating the same ... he was denied character and fitness certification to join the Indiana bar, even after he was cleared to sit for, and passed, both the bar exam and ethics exam. And was even admitted to the Indiana federal bar! NOW KNOW THIS .... you will face headwinds and difficulties in locating a zealously motivated Hoosier attorney to face off against powerful government agents who violate the constitution, for those who do so tend to end up as marginalized as Paul Odgen, who was driven from the profession. So beware, many are mere expensive lapdogs, the kind of breed who will gladly take a large retainer, but then fail to press against the status quo and powers that be when told to heel to. It is a common belief among some in Indiana that those attorneys who truly fight the power and rigorously confront corruption often end up, actually or metaphorically, in real life or at least as to their careers, as dead as the late, great Gary Welch. All of that said, I wish you the very best in finding a Hoosier attorney with a fighting spirit to press your rights as far as you can, for you do have rights against government actors, no matter what said actors may tell you otherwise. Attorneys outside the elitist camp are often better fighters that those owing the powers that be for their salaries, corner offices and end of year bonuses. So do not be afraid to retain a green horn or unconnected lawyer, many of them are fine men and woman who are yet untainted by the "unique" Hoosier system.

  5. I am not the John below. He is a journalist and talk show host who knows me through my years working in Kansas government. I did no ask John to post the note below ...

ADVERTISEMENT