Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

Shaw Family Archives v. CMG Worldwide

United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
486 F. Supp. 2d 309 (2007)


Facts

Marilyn Monroe, LLC (MMLLC) (plaintiff) commenced an action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Shaw Family Archives, LLC (Shaw) (defendant). MMLLC claimed Shaw had violated Indiana’s Right of Publicity Act (Publicity Act) by selling products bearing the likeness and image of Marilyn Monroe and licenses to use images and likenesses of Monroe on commercial products. Principals of Shaw claimed to own the copyright to various iconic images of Monroe. MMLLC, an entity created by the Administratrix of Monroe’s estate to control the intellectual property interests conferred to the beneficiaries of the residuary clause in Monroe’s will, claimed to be the successor-in-interest to her publicity rights under the Publicity Act. The Publicity Act was enacted in 1994, over 30 years after Monroe’s death in 1962 and created a descendable and transferable right of publicity extending 100 years after a testator’s death that applies to acts or events occurring in Indiana regardless of the decedent celebrity’s domicile. MMLLC moved for summary judgment claiming that Monroe’s postmortem publicity rights passed to MMLLC through the residuary clause of her will. Shaw filed a cross motion for summary judgment asserting that Monroe – a possible domiciliary of either California or New York, but not Indiana – could not devise publicity rights she did not own at the time of her death since no Publicity Act had yet been enacted in Indiana or either state of possible domicile. The court considered both motions.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (McMahon, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 175,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.