State ex rel. Elvis Presley International Memorial Foundation v. Crowell

Court of Appeals of Tennessee
733 S.W.2d 89, 2 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1663, 14 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1043 (1987)

ELI5:

Sections

Rule of Law:

The common law right of publicity is a species of intangible personal property that is descendible at death under Tennessee law; however, the enforcement of this right may be barred by the equitable doctrine of laches if there is unreasonable delay and detrimental reliance.

Facts:

Elvis Presley established a career of unparalleled fame and commercially exploited his name and likeness through exclusive licenses during his lifetime.
Presley died in 1977, but the commercial demand for merchandise and use of his name continued.
In 1980, a group of fans sought to use Presley's name for a new trauma center; the Presley Estate offered a license with restrictive conditions, which the group rejected.
The group incorporated the 'Elvis Presley International Memorial Foundation' (International Foundation) in 1981 without the Estate's permission.
The Estate subsequently formed 'Elvis Presley Enterprises, Inc.' (EPE) and later the 'Elvis Presley Memorial Foundation, Inc.' to solicit funds for a fountain.
For several years, the Estate was aware of the International Foundation, communicated with them, and even attended their events without taking legal action to stop their use of the name.
Relations eventually deteriorated between the two groups regarding the use of the name.

Procedural Posture:

The International Foundation filed an unfair competition action in the Chancery Court for Davidson County to dissolve the Estate's foundation.
Elvis Presley's Estate intervened in the action on behalf of the defendant corporation.
The trial court granted the Estate's motion for summary judgment, ruling the right of publicity descended to the Estate.
The International Foundation appealed the dismissal of their complaint to the Court of Appeals of Tennessee.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Is the common law right of publicity a descendible property right that survives a celebrity's death under Tennessee law, and if so, can the defense of laches prevent the estate from enforcing it?

Opinions:

Majority - Judge Koch

Yes, the right of publicity is a descendible property right, but summary judgment was improper due to factual disputes regarding laches. The court reasoned that the right of publicity is a distinct property right independent of the right of privacy. Citing principles of equity, the court determined that the right must be descendible to prevent unjust enrichment (others reaping where the celebrity has sown), to protect the value of contracts made during the celebrity's life, and to prevent consumer deception. The court explicitly rejected the Sixth Circuit's contrary precedent in Memphis Development Foundation, holding instead that Tennessee common law views the right of publicity as intangible personal property that can be bequeathed. However, because the Estate waited four years to object to the International Foundation's use of the name while seemingly acquiescing to it, there was a genuine issue of material fact regarding the defense of laches, necessitating a remand.

Analysis:

This is a seminal case in entertainment law that firmly established the descendibility of the right of publicity in Tennessee, a critical jurisdiction for music and entertainment. By rejecting federal precedent that had previously ruled the right died with the celebrity, the court secured the financial interests of celebrity estates against unauthorized commercial exploitation. The decision grounds the right of publicity in property law rather than privacy law, emphasizing economic value, unjust enrichment, and consumer protection. However, the ruling also serves as a warning to intellectual property holders that property rights must be policing diligently; failure to object to unauthorized use (laches) can jeopardize the ability to enforce those exclusive rights.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: State ex rel. Elvis Presley International Memorial Foundation v. Crowell (1987)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"