The Return Of The Living Dead: Publicity Rights Legislation Continues To Grant Protection To Famous Corpses

from the millions-now-living-will-never-die dept

Hologram* Tupac's appearance at Coachella has brought more attention to the inexact science of publicity rights than anyone could have imagined. While not necessarily a “one-off,” the whole experience had the gimmicky feel of a small triumph of technology over death.

*Not actually a hologram.

Several months down the road and dead celebrities (or rather, their representatives) are fighting back, sending cease-and-desist letters and asserting their publicity rights as a defense against marauding technologists and their holographic emissaries.

The estate of Marilyn Monroe is currently engaged in a legal battle with Digicon Media over possible future digital representations of the dead actress. Digicon cites its 1996 digital representation, “VM2 – The Virtual Marilyn” as proof that it holds the copyright and trademark on digital representations of Marilyn Monroe. It also points out that since the Monroe estate raised no legal challenge during the previous 15 years of development, the statute of limitations has expired and it can proceed unchallenged.

Things are never that simple when IP meets dead celebrities and their “handlers.” Monroe's estate argued that Digicon had similarly done nothing over the last 15 years, hence the lack of legal noise. Digicon pushed back, pointing out that New York doesn't recognize publicity rights, a fact that Monroe's estate should have considered when they relocated her “domicile” in order to dodge California's estate taxes.

AV Concepts, the company behind the Tupac Non-Hologram has plans to craft digital versions of Michael Jackson, Elvis Presley and Jimi Hendrix. (Oh, and their own Marilyn Monroe.) It's tough to imagine many of these being granted permission from the various estates, as the company is either working from a list titled “Most Recalcitrant Estates” or figures rejection is the best teaching tool.

Maybe all AV Concepts will need is a change of venue. As Slate points out, many states do not recognize post-mortem “publicity rights.” In fact, most don't. Only 18 states are willing to grant the dead control over their images. Those that do seem to have followed Sonny Bono's example: dead celebrities (and their estates) are covered for at least 70 years after death. (Tennessee takes this to the illogical conclusion: postmortem publicity rights in that state run death+forever.)

The fact that a famous person could just lapse into the public domain (for lack of a better term) is apparently unacceptable to some existing celebrities. Comedian Bill Cosby is one of them. His concern that “opportunists would one day use his name and image to promote stuff he'd never want to be associated with” was the impetus behind a piece of legislation recently passed by the Massachusetts' senate.

To date, 13 states have passed laws that take this notion a step further, and explicitly make the rights to a person’s identity a piece of property transferable after death, not unlike a car, a house, or a gold watch. They are even transferable in advance, while the person is alive.

While it may seem perfectly normal that a celebrity wouldn't want his or her likeness resurrected to pitch dubious products and services, the unintended consequence is another chilling effect, one that can be leveraged to shut down any posthumous project that doesn't toe the estate line. In addition to IP-as-enforcement, there's the effect it has on the rest of the living. When other IP-protection beneficiaries are claiming a piece of IP-protecting legislation goes too far, this usually indicates a serious problem.

Critics imagine a world in which costume shops can’t dress kids up as Humphrey Bogart for Halloween, pop stars can’t borrow dance moves from Michael Jackson, and college political clubs can’t sell T-shirts emblazoned with John F. Kennedy’s face without paying a licensing fee for the privilege.

Other pushback has come from movie studios, book publishers, and newspapers, concerned that overly strict protections will limit free speech and artistic creation.

Of course, exemptions are granted.

In response to concerns voiced by media organizations like the Motion Picture Association of America, most such laws—including the Massachusetts bill—are written with specific exemptions for creative endeavors, including books, movies, music, and commentary.

This usually means “industries” and not “individuals.” This certainly doesn't mean John Q. Nobody can dash off a line of fiction involving dead celebrities unhassled. It simply gives the writer a bit of legal standing should the inevitable lawsuit be raised.

But say you wanted to write a play about a chance meeting between these two historic figures. Could you? While the play itself may be protected by the First Amendment, that doesn’t mean that the companies that manage Parks and Einstein might not attempt to assert control. Hebrew University has aggressively defended Einstein’s image, even blocking its use on a book called “Everything’s Relative.” And don’t expect to sell programs, posters, T-shirts or the other paraphernalia that might support your play without getting approval and paying whatever fee the owners of Parks’s and Einstein’s rights of publicity demand.

Every push for additional post-death IP protection adds to the potential bottom line of companies like Core Media Group (formerly CKX), which has amassed an entire graveyard's worth of clients at this point

“We get countless calls about people who are famous and passed away to ask us if we can magically turn them into a brand and so forth—and that’s very seldom possible,” says Mark Roesler, the intellectual property lawyer who has become perhaps the most prominent avatar of the dead celebrities industry. Roesler, the head of CMG Worldwide, was hired by the James Dean estate in the 1980s to handle licensing, and his company has since added hundreds of deceased stars to its roster.

Occasionally, CMG has even acquired the rights to deceased celebrities’ images outright, including that of model Bettie Page—Playboy’s Miss January in 1955—who died in 2008. (A Bettie Page-branded store is scheduled to open on Newbury Street in Boston this fall.) “She didn’t have any children, and she wanted to be remembered as the pinup queen that she was, and the legend that she was, and she asked us if she left her intellectual property rights to us, if we’d continue to protect them,” Roesler said.

The supporters of publicity rights legislation make a seemingly good point: let's protect the dead from being abused without hope of recourse. It seems like the “right” thing to do, but the reality of the situation is that these laws encourage abuse from estate holders, most of whom look to set up toll booths everywhere and shut down any use they don't agree with.

But some critics see the problem in more philosophical terms, arguing that no matter how many exemptions are made, such laws still privatize something that ought to be considered part of the public’s cultural heritage. One illustration of this involved Martin Luther King, whose family was paid an $800,000 licensing fee when a foundation building a memorial in King’s honor in Washington, D.C., wanted to use the civil rights leader’s face on fund-raising materials.

It's not as if a majority of the world is simply scanning the obituaries and firing up the screen printer. The effects of locking down every single aspect of a human being and their creative endeavors for a minimum of a lifetime plus 70 years is more subtle and far-reaching than simple hearse-chaser profiteering.

“My concern is over the continued development of popular culture,” said David Wall, a professor at Durham University in England who studies the sociology of law, in an e-mail. Popular culture, he points out, is essentially a huge blender of borrowed influences. “The big [question] is whether Elvis could become Elvis in this modern world. His hair colour and flick were copied off his child idol, Captain America; his clothes style and dance were drawn from contemporary black fashion, but especially Jackie Wilson….No celebrity image comes out of the blue.”

Culture builds on culture. Locking away more and more of it for longer and longer periods of time has a deleterious effect on future creative endeavors. To build on previous culture to sustain your own career and then spin around and lock down everything you can for several decades is disingenuous to say the least. Culture isn’t just about taking. It's also about giving. Leaving a legacy behind for your fellow artists to appreciate, share and build on is supposed to be the rule, not the inadvertent result of dying in the wrong state.

Filed Under:

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “The Return Of The Living Dead: Publicity Rights Legislation Continues To Grant Protection To Famous Corpses”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Anonymous Coward says:

in the main, those that want laws like these with the ridiculous extended periods of time are useless aresholes that cant produce anything themselves. the politicians that grant the extentions aren’t bothered how long they last because they usually aren’t affected now or in the future and dont care about who will be affected in the future. the advancements that dont happen because of these stupid rules can never be taken into account because, as they didn’t happen, no one knows whether we would have benefited or not!

Ninja (profile) says:

What amuses me is that what keeps culture going and historic personalities alive is precisely the public nature of them. Talking about them, writing about them and making culture on top of them is what keeps them alive, makes them a myth and then legends (even though things that sustain the legends might not always be true).

So basically these people are suiciding their possible post-mortem “lifes”. Whatever I just wanted to say but I think you got the point.

I’d say let them do it but one can ask: would Ms Monroe approve this? I don’t think she ever worried about that before she died.

Mesonoxian Eve (profile) says:

I can make claims for the future while living?


Dear world,
Feel free to use my image on anything you’d like despite what any “estate” (which will work to pass laws so they can take the likeness of ordinary people and copyright them) claims.

You may plaster my face in porn (please), birthday cakes, post cards, and religious icons.

There are no fees or penalties to use my likeness.

All I ask in return is you don’t try to raise my corpse through science and resurrect me because I’m just too popular.

When I’m dead, trust me when I say I’ll be very happy I can finally rid myself of this idiotic ridiculousness.

Anonymous Coward says:

Sorry to be off topic, but there was just another shooting in new york … done by … you guessed it (as usual), a white person (I’m not 100 percent positive yet, but you know in these kinds of things it’s almost always a white person). Why isn’t the FBI investigating them more, why are they always wasting time entrapping Arabs while ignoring the real criminals and terrorists?

Oh, and I like this bit

“adding that there was no apparent link to terrorism.”,0,4180453.story

Translation: he’s white, so he can’t be a terrorist.

Seriously, shut up. The FBI needs to spend less time stopping their own terrorist plots and going after real terrorists.

Chris Brand says:

A bit of logic, please ?

“opportunists would one day use his name and image to promote stuff he’d never want to be associated with”
A moment’s thought would show that what “he’d want to be associated with” can only actually be determined while he’s still alive (and able to make those sort of decisions), making the whole idea self-contradictory.

Becky (profile) says:

Marilyn Monroe

The Marilyn Monroe Estate is not engaged in any legal battle with Digicon. There were several letters that went back and fourth and the Estate finally gave up. The copyright of VM2-Virtual Marilyn has been owned since 1996 and the Estate has no legal rights to the image. Our image has been sold, used and in the process of being updated for the 2012 image. We hope AV Concepts does not plan on using their own Marilyn Monroe. That could be cause to engage in a legal battle.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...