Hebrew University of Jerusalem v. General Motors LLC
878 F. Supp. 2d 1021
C.D. Cal.2012Background
- GM moved for summary judgment on all four claims; ad used Einstein image in 2010 Terrain promo; Getty Images licensed the image; HUJ asserts Einstein’s postmortem right of publicity survived death and granted rights via Einstein’s Will/Trust; New Jersey law governs postmortem publicity; the Will’s Article 13 conveys property to a Trust with eventual transfer to HUJ, while Article 14 vests residuals in Margot Einstein; dispute over whether publicity right passed via Trust or residual clause; Court finds genuine issues of material fact regarding Einstein’s probable intent and the scope of “literary property” in the Will; Court grants partial summary judgment, denying only the portion related to the right of publicity and liability for third/fourth causes of action zoomed on the factual dispute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Existence and survivability of postmortem publicity right under New Jersey law | Plaintiff asserts a postmortem right of publicity survived death and passed to HUJ via the Will/Trust. | Defendant argues New Jersey has no postmortem right; Presley predicated but did not create; no lifetime exploitation requirement. | Genuine dispute about survivability; NJ law may recognize postmortem right; issues for trial. |
| Whether lifetime exploitation is required to sustain a postmortem right | Lifetime exploitation not required; Presley recognized survivorship without relying on lifetime exploitation. | Lifetime exploitation required as prerequisite. | Genuine dispute; cannot resolve at summary judgment. |
| Whether Einstein's right of publicity passed through Article 13 Trust or through Article 14 residual clause | Probable intent and broad language support passage via Trust. | Trust language limited to literary property; residual clause to Margot excludes publicity rights. | Genuine dispute of material fact about probable intent and proper passage. |
| Whether the use of Einstein’s image supports Lanham Act false endorsement and UCL liability | Advertisement implied endorsement by Einstein’s estate/HUJ. | No reasonable reader would perceive endorsement; no likelihood of confusion. | Lanham Act and UCL claims unresolved at this stage; summary judgment denied on the third and fourth causes. |
Key Cases Cited
- Presley’s Estate v. Russen, 513 F.Supp.1339 (D.N.J.1981) (postmortem right of publicity recognized in NJ federal court)
- Prima v. Darden, 78 F.Supp.2d 337 (D.N.J.2000) (discusses survivability of publicity rights; lifetime exploitation not clearly required)
- King, 694 F.2d 674 (11th Cir.1983) (illustrates survivability of publicity rights and legacy considerations)
- McFarland v. Miller, 14 F.3d 912 (3d Cir.1994) (discusses survivorship; not addressing lifetime exploitation prerequisite)
- Lugosi v. Universal Pictures, 25 Cal.3d 860 (Cal.1979) (right of publicity personal to artist; later California statute postmortem)