(This was written just before a couple of new responses came in; if it seems a semi-amalgamated reply, that's the reason.) Alex's link to the metrocorpcounsel.com site offers great background info on the publicity/persona rights issue. Here it is again: _http://www.metrocorpcounsel.com/current.php?artType=view&artMonth=September &artYear=2008&EntryNo=4209_ (http://www.metrocorpcounsel.com/current.php?artType=view&artMonth=September&artYear=2008&EntryNo=4209) It closes with the following: Clearly, a name of a celebrity can be used as a trademark. Elvis Presley,Marilyn Monroe and John Lennon are all names protected by U.S. trademarks. The real question that now arises is to what extent a "persona" and/or a "likeness" can be treated as a trademark. As stated above, in the Tiger Woods case the Court did not allow a claim to protect Tiger Woods' image as a trademark. However, the reasoning of that case and others seem to indicate that while not every likeness of a celebrity can function as a trademark-if in fact a likeness and persona are in use for certain classes of goods or services - trademark protection will follow.Commercialization of celebrity personas only recently has invaded our daily lives, and the effect of this invasion has been pervasive, both culturally and legally. As such the protection surrounding such personas has continued to grow amorphously. The exact contours of protection continue to be redefined, and the nature of the property itself continues to expand in certain directions while contracting in others. However, as this commercialization continues to grow, the clear trend is that the property rights associated with these personas will continue expanding as well. Kevin's questions raise the issue of selective enforcement. Does failing to act or sue in every case result in the forfeiture of the right to bring action in any particular one? Also, while some 18 states currently have publicity or persona rights statutes on the books, Indiana and Oklahoma reach the farthest: Death +100 years. California is only 75 years. New York does not recognize those rights at all. Which leads us to the inevitable: With the centennial of Twain's death next year, does the issue become moot? Will CMG have any rights left to claim to represent? Or does the trademark aspect give them what they need to continue? Mark Roesler, head of CMG, has built a business based on the "branding" of deceased celebrities. Does that establish a commercial basis for a property right beyond name and persona, one unaffected by current statutory limits? (His arguments in favor can be viewed on the CMG website, under "CMG News."): _http://cmgworldwide.com/press/articles.html_ (http://cmgworldwide.com/press/articles.html) As I mentioned, it has been a deep and murky pond, growing "amorphously" as used in the link above. The guidelines seem to shift with whatever a particular court decides in any given case, or the extent to which someone is willing to go to pursue or defend a claim, and what may be at stake. I agree that it's just plain nutty to think you couldn't paint a picture of Twain on a Tee-shirt without the threat of a lawsuit. Heckuva world. But I surmise that if I mass-produced them in '09, put them up for sale on the web for $15 each, and sold 150,000 of them, I'd be hearing from someone looking for a piece of that pie. Roger Durrett PS: Thanks, folks, for the tips on formatting. This was composed prior to receiving them. I've tried a cut-and-paste with narrow set margins. Maybe it will work. (Addendum: doesn't appear to have, unfortunately.)