Indy firm loses Marilyn Monroe rights case

Michael W.
March 19, 2008
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
CMG Worldwide Inc. suffered a significant legal setback Monday when a federal judge ruled that Fishers-based CMG and a company it represents, Marilyn Monroe LLC, do not own Marilyn Monroe's publicity rights.

The California ruling could be a massive blow to CMG. Monroe's likeness on everything from TV commercials to T-shirts generated about $30 million in sales between 1994 and 2006; about a fourth of the revenue landed at CMG.

CEO Mark Roesler was out of town and couldn't be immediately reached today for comment.

However, an Indianapolis attorney who formerly represented CMG and has handled Monroe litigation says the ruling is disappointing from iconic and legal standpoints.

In effect, the ruling tossed ownership rights to the public, said Jonathan Polak, who leads the intellectual property group at Sommer Barnard.

"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," Polak said. "This is a sad day for those of us practicing in this area."

The case started in Indiana but was transferred to and consolidated in California District Court in 2005.

Marilyn Monroe LLC is owned by Anna Strasberg, the wife of Monroe's former acting coach. Strasberg argued that publicity rights passed to her late husband after Monroe's death.

CMG and Marilyn Monroe LLC claimed that photographers Milton H. Greene and Tom Kelley had infringed their rights. Green and Kelley's photos helped catapult Monroe into stardom and include a nude shot of her on a red velvet cloth published in Playboy magazine's inaugural issue in 1953.


Post a comment to this story

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 IBJ 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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. The $104K to CRC would go toward debts service on $486M of existing debt they already have from other things outside this project. Keystone buys the bonds for 3.8M from CRC, and CRC in turn pays for the parking and site work, and some time later CRC buys them back (with interest) from the projected annual property tax revenue from the entire TIF district (est. $415K / yr. from just this property, plus more from all the other property in the TIF district), which in theory would be about a 10-year term, give-or-take. CRC is basically betting on the future, that property values will increase, driving up the tax revenue to the limit of the annual increase cap on commercial property (I think that's 3%). It should be noted that Keystone can't print money (unlike the Federal Treasury) so commercial property tax can only come from consumers, in this case the apartment renters and consumers of the goods and services offered by the ground floor retailers, and employees in the form of lower non-mandatory compensation items, such as bonuses, benefits, 401K match, etc.

  2. $3B would hurt Lilly's bottom line if there were no insurance or Indemnity Agreement, but there is no way that large an award will be upheld on appeal. What's surprising is that the trial judge refused to reduce it. She must have thought there was evidence of a flagrant, unconscionable coverup and wanted to send a message.

  3. As a self-employed individual, I always saw outrageous price increases every year in a health insurance plan with preexisting condition costs -- something most employed groups never had to worry about. With spouse, I saw ALL Indiana "free market answer" plans' premiums raise 25%-45% each year.

  4. It's not who you chose to build it's how they build it. Architects and engineers decide how and what to use to build. builders just do the work. Architects & engineers still think the tarp over the escalators out at airport will hold for third time when it snows, ice storms.

  5. http://www.abcactionnews.com/news/duke-energy-customers-angry-about-money-for-nothing