Shaw Family Archives v. CMG Worldwide case brief
summary
486 F. Supp. 2d 309 (2007)
CASE FACTS
Plaintiffs argued, inter alia, that even if a postmortem right of publicity in a public figure's name, likeness, and persona existed, defendants could not demonstrate that they were the owners of that right because only property actually owned by a testator at the time of her death could be devised by will. Since neither New York nor California (the only possible domiciles of the public figure at the time of her death)--nor Indiana--recognized descendible postmortem publicity rights at the time of the public's death, she could not transfer any such rights through her will. Moreover, plaintiffs contended, neither the California nor the Indiana right of publicity statutes allowed for the transfer of the publicity rights they recognize through the wills of personalities who were already deceased at the time of their enactment.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
Count II of defendants' complaint was dismissed.
Suggested Study Aids For Wills, Trusts & Estate Law
486 F. Supp. 2d 309 (2007)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Defendants moved for
summary judgment on the right of publicity claims set forth in Count
II of its complaint, and plaintiffs filed a cross-motion for summary
judgment on Count II against defendants.CASE FACTS
Plaintiffs argued, inter alia, that even if a postmortem right of publicity in a public figure's name, likeness, and persona existed, defendants could not demonstrate that they were the owners of that right because only property actually owned by a testator at the time of her death could be devised by will. Since neither New York nor California (the only possible domiciles of the public figure at the time of her death)--nor Indiana--recognized descendible postmortem publicity rights at the time of the public's death, she could not transfer any such rights through her will. Moreover, plaintiffs contended, neither the California nor the Indiana right of publicity statutes allowed for the transfer of the publicity rights they recognize through the wills of personalities who were already deceased at the time of their enactment.
DISCUSSION
- Regardless of the public figure's domicile at the time of her death, and regardless of any rights purportedly conferred after her death by the Indiana Right of Publicity Act, (Ind. Code §§ 32-36-1-1 to -20, or by Cal. Civil Code § 3344.1), the public figure could not devise by will a property right she did not own at the time of her death.
CONCLUSION
Count II of defendants' complaint was dismissed.
Suggested Study Aids For Wills, Trusts & Estate Law
No comments:
Post a Comment