My guess is the owner of Elvis’s name and likeness is concerned that unlicensed use of his name and likeness will make it generic and in the public domain. This means they would lose their rights. The way to keep these rights is to enforce them, as with the wedding chapels. Whether it is good policy for society to allow artists’ names an…
My guess is the owner of Elvis’s name and likeness is concerned that unlicensed use of his name and likeness will make it generic and in the public domain. This means they would lose their rights. The way to keep these rights is to enforce them, as with the wedding chapels. Whether it is good policy for society to allow artists’ names and likenesses to be owned long after death by artists’ estates or transferred to companies is a thorny question, particularly in this age of easy deepfakes (who gets to profit from that?), but under our current system this is how it works.
My guess is the owner of Elvis’s name and likeness is concerned that unlicensed use of his name and likeness will make it generic and in the public domain. This means they would lose their rights. The way to keep these rights is to enforce them, as with the wedding chapels. Whether it is good policy for society to allow artists’ names and likenesses to be owned long after death by artists’ estates or transferred to companies is a thorny question, particularly in this age of easy deepfakes (who gets to profit from that?), but under our current system this is how it works.