Can you use the name and likeness of someone like Albert Einstein or Douglas MacArthur without obtaining and paying for the rights? Does it depend on the person? Does it depend on the way they are used?
Some people do make a big fuss. Marilyn Monroe and Hemmingway have images that have been sued over by their estates.
Whether they have a “right” to sue or not, you’d better have your own lawyer on call.
IANAL, but some jurisdictions also recognize the principle that a person has a ownership right to the commercial value of his or her likeness. In other words, because people will buy a picture of, for example, Jimi Hendrix as opposed to some anonymous guitarist, then Jimi Hendrix’s appearance has a marketable value that belongs to him and he (or in this case, his estate) is entitled to compensation when his appearance is used to sell a product.
Wikipedia article on California Celebrities Rights Act.
Practitioner’s Guide to California Right of Publicity Law.
The statute of limitations: “No action shall be brought under this section by reason of any use of a deceased personality’s name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness occurring after the expiration of 50 years from the death of the deceased personality.”
Einstein died in 1955, Marilyn Monroe died in 1962, Jimi Hendrix in 1970.
Exemptions:
Thanks for the responses. This is just what I was looking for. However, I don’t understand the last part at all:
Can you clarify this?
It means I don’t have to get permission from the (Gerald Ford just died, so him), Gerald Ford estate to make a movie about Gerald Ford, for instance, or to write an article about his funeral, or to paint a picture of him, but if I was Thomas’s English Muffins and wanted to make an ad showing Gerald Ford enjoying my delicious English Muffins, I’d have to get Betty Ford’s permission first.
I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is as follows:
If you were to make a four-color silk-screening depicting multiple faces of, for instance, Andy Warhol, called Andy Warhol Diptych, that would be allowed.
If you were a news agency depicting the grand opening of So And So Museum, where the painting was displayed, you could show the painting in your news article.
If you were So And So Museum advertising that you had the Andy Warhol Diptych, you could use the painting’s likeness (which contains Warhol’s likeness) in the commercial for your museum — since the painting is an allowed use, the commercial of the painting is an allowed use.
However, owning the painting does not convey the right to use an actor playing Andy Warhol to say, “Andy Warhol says, come to the So And So Museum!”
Similarly, if you had a biopic about Gerald Ford, you needn’t get permission; and since you don’t, your TV station can run commercials for the biopic.
And if you were to run off 100,000 copies of the Andy Warhol Diptych and start selling them for $14.95 at Spencer’s Gifts, you could no longer claim that each of them was an “original” work of art.
Probably not, Little Nemo, but I think Warhol would be amused by it if he were alive. 
A cursory look around Wikipedia for information on the legal impact of the Marilyn Monroe Diptych turned up nothing. I’m not sure how that was handled.
To paraphase the statute, you cannot use the decease person’s image or voice in an advertisement — unless it’s just an advertisement for an allowed usage, such as for a play, book, magazine, newspaper, musical composition, film, etc.
For example, Florsheim Shoes can’t put a picture of Fred Astaire dancing on the ceiling (from Royal Wedding) in an ad for their shoes* that will you make you feel “lighter than air.” However, Turner Classic Movies can put a picture of Fred Astaire in a print ad for their upcoming documentary about Fred Astaire (or their Fred Astaire film festival, or their new book about Fred Astaire, etc.).
- Unless, of course, they got a license to do so from his estate.
Here’s an example of what I’m talking about. Obviously, the “artist” here isn’t selling prints of his painting based on four random people hanging out in front of a diner. The selling value of these prints is derived from the fame of the subjects portrayed in the painting. So if you’re making money of of selling a picture of Elvis Presley’s face then you owe the Presley estate a piece of the action (and it was, in fact, Priscilla Presley who led campaigns to have “commercial likeness” laws enacted).
Having seen this print for sale, I wonder if the rules are different for politicians, at least if the artwork can be plausibly represented as some sort of statement of support or opposition.
I’m just guessing at this point, but I’d say that politicians probably are considered differently than entertainers. The courts have always tried to give wide latitude to political commentary and depicting a political figure would probably fall under that umbrella. In addition, politicians don’t have the same commercial value invested in their personal appearance that a show business person does.
If you numbered each one, you could then sell them as “numbered, limited edition prints” of that artwork.
I think that you could still sell them without violating Andy Warhol’s estate’s rights to his image. But IANAL.
I’d say you were shakey on the “original” in that case. And you’ve completely lost the sense of “single”. And you may never have had the “fine art” in the first place.
Dunnow man, El Che sells a lot. Mostly to people who have very little idea who he was or what he did.
My guess is that for some people (Lincoln for example) the estate simply isn’t available for commentary or suit.
As Walloon noted above, there is usually a time limit built into these laws when a person’s likeness becomes “public domain”.
Under common law in the majority of states, a celebrity’s estate has no right to the celebrity’s image or voice after death. Only by getting laws passed similar to California’s law are the estates holding on to these rights up to 70 years after death.
I don’t know what “original” is intended to mean in a legal sense. It is truly not an original if it is a copy, but since you are the art’s origin, i.e., you created it, it is still your original art even though the numbered prints are not each unique.