Identity ownership

[dhermann1]

Can anyone (Lizzie?) tell me how identity ownership works for celebs who are dead? I know the Elvis estate was trying to make all Elvis impersonators pay royalties. Do some estates have copyrights on the deceased stars image, so that no one can impersonate them without paying for the right? How can I find what personalities this applies to?

 

[Fletch]

All I know is I shuddered a little when the Count Basie Orchestra became the Count Basie‚Ñ¢ Orchestra.

At least the T shirt, yachting cap and action figure tie-in deals never materialized.

 

[LizzieMaine]

It depends on the state where the celebrity lived -- some states, especially California, have right-of-identity laws that give control of a deceased personality's image to his surviving heirs. Remembering off the top of my head, I think that Bela Lugosi's children were heavily involved in getting this law passed some time in the 80s, and other states have followed suit.

In the wake of this, companies have arisen that specialize in managing the merchandising exploitation of dead celebrities -- an outfit called CMG Worldwide is the biggest name in this business, with a client list ranging from Marilyn Monroe to Malcolm X. See their complete roster at http://www.cmgworldwide.com/clients.html As you'll note, not all their clients are deceased, but most are -- it's probably a lot easier to exploit the image of a personality who's perpetually frozen in time than it is a current celebrity who could easily pass out of favor.

Note also that they don't actually say "Alive" in the client list, but the more euphemistic "Available For Personal Appearances."

 

[dhermann1]

Hmmmm . . . . There's a town near my home town of Chautauqua NY, named Lilydale, that is a center of the World Spiritualist Church. That's right, a whole town full of mediums and seances. So a "Personal Appearance" there might be defined somewhat differently.
Thanks for the info, Lizzie, I knew I could count on you.

 

[dhermann1]

Just perusing the CMG website, I'm torn between feeling that this is reasonable and that it's disgusting. It's a very fraught issue. More delving needed.

 

[Edward]

In London there is (or at least was) an Elvis-themed merchandise shop called Elvisly Yours. The Gracelands Estate a few years ago brought a suit in the English courts trying to prevent the shop from treading under Elvis' name, but the courts ruled that Elvis was a historical person and as such his name alone wasn't sufficiently distinct to be trade marked. Same decision was made in respect of ex-Mrs Charles Windsor, Diana, Princess of Wales. The courts said something like their signatures could be protected as a mark, but the mere historical personage could not.

Obviously, an Elvis impersonator or someone using Elvis' name would still have to pay royalties as appropriate in respect of performing the music. Very easy in the UK, though - live performances are covered by the venue (as long as its entertainments licence is up to date, that's covered), and very few tribute acts ever actually record anything. All they could potentially get them on would be infringement of a copyright in the design of Elvis' costumes or something, though this would likely be highly unproductive evne if succesful - after all, it's those tribute acts out there that are a big part of what keeps Elvis' memory and thus - kerching - record sales alive.

I think this will change in future, though. We're already seeing the rise of the concept of "publicity rights" over hee, and sicne the early 90s stars have been trademarking their names and images and everything they can. Mick Jagger's name is trade marked, for instance. I can certainly see how this could be open to abuse, and no doubt at some point in the future the courts will end up ruling on - for instance - a case where some one is trying to prevent long out of copyright work by the Stones or whoever from being sold by someone else on the grounds of Trade Mark infringement. Disney chracters have long been trademarked - so even after that stuff all goes out of copyright, the Disney business will still be able to control them. The grandson of Edgar Rice Burroughs made his living solely out of exploting Tarzan - he registered Tarzan as a TM some years ago, so though the stories are now long out of copyright, for as long as the registered TM hold good, they will still be barred from the public domain. I would be concerned at this trend, as the very concept of copyright being a limited term was always to balaance the interests of the creator and their dependents against the enrichment of the public domain. Seems to me in recent years the public domain is being robbed blind as a result of the influence the entertainment industry exercises in the legislature.

 

[dhermann1]

I could see this working to the detriment of some of these people (or their heirs). Once they're dead, noone will bother making any reference to them, for fear of being sued. The irony of greed!

 

[Archie Goodwin]

This jogged my memory

I read the article linked below a few weeks ago. Essentilly, it cut the legs out from under companies like CMG Worldwide. A Federal court determined that postmortem rights of publicity had to exist at the time of death and in the state where the person was a resident. Monroe died in California, but that state did not have a law recognizing postmortem identity rights until 1984, therefore, she had no postmortem publicity rights.

http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/newswire/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003582731

 

[dhermann1]

VEERRRRRRRRY INTERESTING!!!
Thanks!