Check out the free internet law treatise at http://ilt.eff.org/. It is sponsored by the Electronic Frontier Foundation and is an open collaborative treaty summarizing the law relating to the internet.
Based on the publication Electronic Media and Privacy Law Handbook, published by Perkins Coie in 2003, it contains extensive information including sections on Defamation, Content and Speech Regulation, Copyright, Trademark, Misappropriation, Electronic Contracts and Privacy. It is still in Beta stage, and it is a wiki, or collaborative endeavor of many contributors who can edit the material, so one should be cautious about relying exclusively on it.
MARILYN MONROE ESTATE HAS NO RIGHT OF PUBLICITY
A federal judge has held that Marilyn Monroe's right of publicity did not survive her death. Consequently a the owner of photographs of her could sell images of the screen siren to commercial product manufacturers without paying a licensing fee.
The judge said Monroe did not have the capacity to grant property rights that she did not own at the time of her death.
Monroe's estate argued that it was the successor to Monroe's right of publicity, arising from her grant of the right in her will to actor Lee Strasberg, a friend of Monroe's. When Strasberg died, his heirs established a company to manage the intellectual property assets of the beneficiaries of Monroe's will. Monroe's estate claimed that Shaw Family Archives (SFA), owner of the photos, use of the actress's image violated its rights under Indiana's 1994 Right of Publicity Act. This law creates a descendible and transferable right of publicity that survives for 100 years after a person's death.
SFA contended that the Monroe estate could not lay claim to the rights because Monroe could only devise by will property that she owned when she died. Neither New York nor California, the only possible domiciles of Monroe at the time of her death, recognized such rights at that time. Moreover, Indiana also did not recognize such rights at the time.
Shaw Family Archives Ltd. et al. v. CMG Worldwide Inc. et al., No. 05-3939, 2007 WL 1413381 (S.D.N.Y. May 7, 2007).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Popular entries
-
With the price of gas in the modern day, I've looked around at scooters/mopeds a little bit. An interesting thing out there is the 3 whe...
-
After a very long hiatus, I've been reinfected with the photography bug thanks to acquiring a new digital SLR (some of my recent work i...
-
New York City has lowest crime rate . Good, now maybe I can finally get somebody to buy that bridge I purchased last year.
-
Apparently both the Privacy Commissioner of Canada and Facebook intend to hold separate press conferences tomorrow to discuss the outcome of...
-
You have to tell your client if the prosecutor is prosecuting you too .
-
Google has just launced "Latitude", which uses the GPS on your smartphone to share your location with your friends. Though it look...
-
You too can be a Virginia State Trooper: You get a cool vehicle assigned to you (only the Virginian ones at the beginning). You get to dodge...
-
I've been overwhelmed by the number of questions I've received in response to " Ask the privacy lawyer ". Some of them are...
-
How in the world do you break into a house and cut the clothes off the person living there without waking her?
-
According to the Edmonton Journal, Frank Work is stepping down as the information and Privacy Commissioner of Alberta. He has held the offic...