"Public" images, generally, would not, in my opinion, be considered part of an estate, in the sense that they can be controlled, e.g., licensed by an estate, except where the estate, or the legal representative of the individual while living (in vitro) has obtained legal protection for specific written/published or visual "images" per se. On the other hand, of course, any one can sue to "protect" an image, manufactured or otherwise, even if these are "frivolous" suits, meant to intimidate, through the threat of expensive litigation, and deter any perceived alterations and/or critical commentary regarding cherished images. Satire, however, is another story, generally regarded as protected speech, especially for "public" figures. The example that comes to my mind in this regard is the suit against Larry Flynt year s ago for, among other things, his portrayal of a Supreme Court justice engaged in out-of-the-mainstream sex acts. I don't recall at which level of the Federal court system the Flynt case was finally decided, but Flynt did win an unequivocal victory, based on the First Amendment's attributed protection of satire of public figures. Flynt, of course, had the tenacity and wherewithal to fight to the end in his case. Most such cases are likely settled informally or by non-public settlement. An instance of the latter occurred a few years ago when Harley-Davidson threatened legal action against Suzuki for manufacturing a motorcycle which imitated the "po-ta-to, po-ta-to" exhaust rhythm of Harleys, caused by an offset crankpin used since the 1930s. Harley argued that they were protecting their image, although the exhaust sound had never been patented and had been associated with other bikes prior to Harley-Davidson. Whether due to HD's perceived political and financial power or the desire to avoid an expensive and unproductive spat, Harley kept it's rhythm and Suzuki is doing as well as ever, especially in the present economic downturn. This is a long-winded way of saying that a major factor in these "image" protection cases, where explicit patents or copyrights are not applicable, is the financial wherewithal and obstinacy of the defendants whose creative efforts have posed a perceived threat to a cultivated image. Martin Zehr Kansas City, Missouri P.S.- This opinion should not, in any event, be construed or interpreted as legal advice applicable to any cause of action, current, pending, or in contemplation, and is definitely worth the price paid by its readers.