整個事件之爭議，即是瑪麗蓮夢露（下稱夢露）死時之住所在紐約或加州，先確定住所為何，方能決定要適用那一州的法律。加州的法律有承認人死後知名度的保護，不過加州在1984年才有保護人死後知名度的立法，夢露早在1961年身故，所以不可適用之；但加州之後通過立法，採回溯保護死後知名度，不過法院仍認定夢露死時住所在紐約，故無加州知名度法律之適用，本案告結。
夢露死時，住所設定於紐約，但亡故時人是在加州，斯時紐約無承認死後知名度之立法或習慣法，故夢露不受死後知名度法令之保護。正如夢露50年前曾說過：「我知道我屬於大眾或世界，不是因為才幹或美麗，是因為我從不屬於任何人或事」。
Prior Proceedings. After her death, Monroe’s lawyer and executor, Aaron Frosch, asserted to both the New York Surrogate’s Court and the California tax authorities that Monroe died a domiciliary of New York. This allowed the Monroe Estate to avoid substantial California estate, inheritance and income taxes. And in 1994, the Monroe Estate faced a claim by Monroe’s alleged daughter, Nancy Miracle, who sought 50% of the Estate under a provision of California law, which was not available under New York law. The Estate defeated that claim by alleging that Monroe died a New York citizen.
The Current Lawsuit and the May 2007 Ruling. The lawsuit was brought in March 2005, when the Marily Monroe, LLC (the successor to the Estate) sued Milton Greene Archives, Inc., claiming ownership of Monroe’s right of publicity and alleging that the defendant unlawfully used Monroe’s image and likeness. In May 2007 the district court granted summary judgment, holding that Monroe LLC did not own Monroe’s right of publicity because at the time of Monroe’s death neither New York nor California recognized a descendible, posthumous right of publicity. As the District Court explained, the California law that made publicity rights inheritable was only passed in 1984, decades after Monroe’s 1962 death.
The California Legislature Overturns the Court. In direct response to the Distict Court’s 2007 ruling, the California legislature passed a bill later that year, which said the publicity rights inheritance law was retroactive and applied to all those who had died prior to 1984. The new law made the right of publicity freely transferable, descendible and able to pass through the residual clause in the will of the deceased personality The law was explicitly designed to abrogate the 2007 ruling.
The District Court’s Second Ruling. Monroe LLC later sought reconsideration of the district court’s ruling. Although the district court granted Monroe LLC’s motion for reconsideration, it found that Monroe LLC was “advanc[ing] a position inconsistent with that taken by the estate in the prior proceeding[s].” The District Court thus ruled that judicial estoppel would preclude Monroe, LLC from now taking an inconsistent position.
Ninth Circuit Ruling. The Ninth Circuit agreed with the district court that judicial estoppel prevented Monroe LLC from taking the position that Monroe died domiciled in California when it had prevailed in earlier suits on the premise that Monroe was a domiciliary of New York: “This is a textbook case for applying judicial estoppel. Monroe’s representatives took one position on Monroe’s domicile at death for 40 years, and then changed their position when it was to their great financial advantage,” the appeals court said.
Thus photographers, artists, and others will be able to exploit images without authorization from the estate. As the Ninth Circuit explained: “We observe that the lengthy dispute over the exploitation of Marilyn Monroe’s persona has ended in exactly the way that Monroe herself predicted more than 50 years ago: ‘I knew I belonged to the public and to the world, not because I was talented or even beautiful but because I had never belonged to anything or anyone else.”
