NEW: MARILYN MONROE ITEMS FOR SALE

4/14/2010


Here's an article from MSNBC News..
Marilyn Monroe Items for sale..

Cheers..Joe

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36312056/ns/today-today_entertainment/displaymode/1247/?beginSlide=1

Expected to draw very high bids is a hand-written note on Bel Air Hotel stationery, pleading with John Kennedy to come rescue her because she was afraid that Bobby was going to have J. Edgar Hoover kill her if she didn't marry him.

Also, the skirt from "Some Like it Hot"

4/14/2010

Lin..

The one who's going to make the millions
off of this is Anna Strasberg, she's the 2nd wife of Lee
Strasberg ( He died years ago) He was number #1 in
her will. To show you what agreedy bitch Anna Strasberg
is , she tried to stop top photographers who did photos
of Marilyn in the 1950's and early 60's from selling them
and the funny thing is they owned the rights to these
photos, she claimed Marilyn's image belonged to her
estate and no one can use it without paying for it. Guess
what it was taken to the New York State Supreme Court
and the judge ruled that Marilyn Monroe was a resident
of New York , not California plus he ruled that after she
died her image became public, 1962. They didn't pass a
law until the 1980's about famous people's images, that
law was passed in California. I'm sure Strasberg must be
fuming, Millions of dollars she won't get.....


Cheers....Joe

I dunno -if I had a cash cow I'd do what I could to preserve it too. I don't know that that makes her greedy.

Photographers have to get model releases; they don't own the images of a person even if they took the photo. Did those photographers have model releases made out to them? I bet they were made out to whatever magazine had hired them. Maybe they were greedy, selling stuff they had no right to. If Monroe hadn't been ruled a resident of NY (how arbitrary), would they have then had permission?

Not that I care, lol, but greed is in the eye of the beholder.

4/14/2010

LC...

These top photographers like Avedon,
Green, Bert Stern, etc. They owned the
rights to their photography, the magazines
like Life and Look may have hired them but
their agreement was they always owned the
rights....

Cheers..Joe

Actually, you're mistaken on releases. Absolutely doesn't apply to public figures.
Do you think newspapers need releases to show photos of Obama or Paris Hilton?

Strasberg's case was absurd from the start. One of the checks and balances in the human eco-niche is that greedy, stupid people with a lot of money end up giving it to lawyers.

I wasn't thinking of papparazzi photos, but rather posed studio photos, which I assume the images Strasburg was concerned about were. Surely model releases are obtained for those?

On a trip to Hawaii, my family did one of those get-your-photo-taken-with-birds-on-your-shoulders thing. The photographer showed me a photo he took of Snoop dog (or whatever that rapper's name is) with parrots on his shoulders and head. He said he'd love to sell them to magazines but didn't have the proper permissions.

I used to sell posed pics of celebrities all the time.
My understanding is that once you seek public renown, you're no longer really private.

Also, you look at a photo on a beach or street... can somebody without the negative file even prove it was a studio shot?

The idea that a person doesn't have the right to protect their image in public, but does have a right to suppress it if they knowingly accept a shoot is peculiar.

I would say, you take studio shots of somebody like that YOU are going to be the one signing releases and restrictions. In their absense....