<P> These eight factors have their origins in the case Polaroid Corp. v. Polarad Elect . Corp., but are similarly used by courts to analyze false endorsement claims by celebrities . </P> <P> Indiana is believed to have the most far - reaching right of publicity statutes in the world, providing recognition of the right for 100 years after death, and protecting not only the usual "name, image and likeness," but also signature, photograph, gestures, distinctive appearances, and mannerisms . There are other notable characteristics of the Indiana law, though most of the major movement in right of publicity emanates from New York and California, with a significant body of case law which suggest two potentially contradictory positions with respect to recognition of the right of publicity . </P> <P> Some states recognize the right through statute and some others through common law . California has both statutory and common - law strains of authority protecting slightly different forms of the right . The right of publicity is a property right, rather than a tort, and so the right may be transferable to the person's heirs after their death . The Celebrities Rights Act was passed in California in 1985 and it extended the personality rights for a celebrity to 70 years after their death . Previously, the 1979 Lugosi v. Universal Pictures decision by the California Supreme Court held that Bela Lugosi's personality rights could not pass to his heirs . </P> <Ul> <Li> In 1977, in the case of Zacchini v. Scripps - Howard Broadcasting Co., the U.S. Supreme Court held that the First Amendment did not immunize a television station from liability for broadcasting Hugo Zacchini's human cannonball act without his consent . This was the first, and so far the only, U.S. Supreme Court ruling on rights of publicity . </Li> <Li> In September 2002, Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman sued luxury cosmetics company Sephora for allegedly using a picture of them without permission in a brochure promoting perfumes . </Li> <Li> In October 1990, actor Crispin Glover filed a lawsuit against Universal Studios for both the unauthorized use of his likeness and the use of footage of him from Back to the Future in Back to the Future Part II; his permission had not been sought for the latter and he received no payment . After a motion to dismiss was overruled, the case was settled for an undisclosed amount . The Screen Actors Guild changed its rules to prohibit its members from unauthorized mimicking of other SAG members . </Li> <Li> A recent example is John Dillinger's rights of publicity, as seen in Phillips v. Scalf, a 2003 Indiana Court of Appeals case . The operators of Dillinger's restaurant are alleged to have violated the right of publicity of Jeffrey G. Scalf, the grandnephew of the 1930s gangster and bank robber John Dillinger, in using without authorization Dillinger's name, image, and likeness in connection with the restaurant . In a later case, a U.S. district court ruled in 2011 that Indiana's publicity rights statute did not protect people who died before the law's enactment in 1994 . </Li> <Li> In March 2003, eight members of the cast of The Sopranos alleged that electronics retailer Best Buy used their images in newspaper ads without permission . </Li> <Li> In the July 2003 case of ETW Corp. v. Jireh Publishing, however, a painting of the golfer Tiger Woods and others is protected by the US Constitution's First Amendment and treads neither on the golfer's trademarks nor publicity rights . Similarly in the July 2003 case of Johnny and Edgar Winter v. DC Comics, a depiction of blues music duo the Winter brothers in a comic book as worms called the Autumn Brothers obtained First Amendment protection from publicity rights suit . In May 2005, Toney v. Oreal USA Inc. clarified the distinction between the purview of copyright versus the nature of publicity rights . </Li> <Li> The 2006 New York County Supreme Court case Nussenzweig v. DiCorcia, after dismissing the complaint on statute of limiations grounds, held in the alternative that personality rights are limited by First Amendment rights of artistic freedom of expression)). The decision was affirmed on appeal by the Appellate Division and the Court of Appeals, but those courts only addressed the statute of limitations holding, not the First Amendment holding . </Li> <Li> In 2008, a federal judge in California ruled that Marilyn Monroe's rights of publicity were not protectable in California . The court reasoned that since Monroe was domiciled in New York at the time of her death, and New York does not protect a celebrity's deceased rights of publicity, her rights of publicity ended upon her death . </Li> <Li> In the 2009 case of James "Jim" Brown v. Electronic Arts, Inc., the District Court of the Central District of California dismissed athlete Jim Brown's theory of false endorsement under the Lanham Act and determined that the First Amendment protects the unauthorized use of a trademark in an artistic work when the mark has artistic relevance to the work and does not explicitly mislead as to the source or content of the work . Applying this test, the court found a lack of implied endorsement and held that the First Amendment protected Electronic Arts in its use of a virtual football player that resembled Mr. Brown . </Li> </Ul>

Who owns the likeness and intellectual property of dead celebrities