Estate of Bill Monroe Offers Rare Ownership of Prized Possessions

[billkilpatrick]

… My absolute guess is that the family own it and want to see the name promoted but lack the skills and knowledge to do it properly. …

Assuming that's so and in defense of the family, Picasso's kids sold their father's name to Renault for use on one of their cars. This was done to protect the name, something which requires mega-bucks, lots of attention and lotsandlotsandlots of lawyers, more than the kids had.

But as reaction so far has been generally negative and "we" will be the intended target for this stuff, any Bill Monroe related merchandise will have to be very tasteful indeed.

What am I saying! - "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public" - H.L. Mencken

[MikeEdgerton]

What they are looking for is something like this. I'm just not so sure that Monroe's name and likeness is going to have all that much value. He is revered by his fan base but that fan base isn't nearly as wide or far reaching. If you branded strings or clothing or most anything with his name I'm not too sure that would draw me in and I respect the man and his legacy.

[Spruce]

"Fair Use" in copyright law allows a wide range of non-commercial use of photos, film, and video (up to a point) without paying royalties. If you use Bill's image in a commercial context, for profit, then royalties would kick in. As they should.

That's the one reason I made "Mangler" available for free...
The other reasons are all the implications of the contents of this thread...

[JEStanek]

Bill Monroe Brand Adult Diapers! This is a money grab by whomever is holding the estate. This isn't a curation of a legacy. This is capitalism at it's most base in my opinion.

Selling of his personal effects may be ghoulish but is better than selling the rights to his name and likeness, (again - IMO). Can't the family make tons of his personal effects and not need to sell his name and likeness off. I thought those awful KFC ads with the various new Col Sanders were funny but a tad creepy, imagine similar ads with a "new" Bill hawking whatever you could imagine!

I would love to sell people willing to give me $100 a box of No Part Of Nothin' and then donate the money to a bluegrass mandolin camp for tuition scholarships. But, not everyone's motives would be so pure.

Jamie

PS. Lisa Marie Presley did this with Elvis's estate in 2004.

[ccravens]

If Bill Monroe's estate wants to make money, that's their right.

If Monroe fans want to buy some of his stuff, that's their right also.

Why should this be made out to be a moral issue?

[AlanN]

Many years ago, an auction of Monroe memorabilia occurred. One noted collector obtained many of Bill's personal items: clothing, silverware, cancelled checks, knick-knacks, etc., and has them featured in display cases and on department store dummies for the interested to gawk at. It seems there was left-over, which is now being/soon-to-be hawked. For me, there is mild interest to see such stuff; for john q. public, even less, way less. But, there is a small segment of folks fascinated by this stuff. I hope they sell it all.

[allenhopkins]

If Bill Monroe's estate wants to make money, that's their right. If Monroe fans want to buy some of his stuff, that's their right also. Why should this be made out to be a moral issue?

No argument about the "rights" to disposed of estate property as the executor(s) or heirs see fit.

Just a feeling that it seems a bit creepy to be selling Monroe's name as well, and personal items like shirts and shoes -- unless they were strongly identified with his performance persona. For example -- for no rationally defensible reason -- I'd feel differently about one of Monroe's hats that he regularly wore onstage. Buying that would seem more of a tribute to his memory as a performer -- rather than his slacks, shirt or shoes. But that's just a personal "take" on it.

There has to be a bit of a ghoulish aura, around going through the dead musician's dresser drawers and closets, pulling out his ATM card etc., and putting the proceeds up for sale. Parts of his mandolin -- sure. Posters, contracts, signed photos, set lists (did he use one?), letters to other musicians, fans, promoters -- why not? Socks and underwear -- well, they're not listed, so probably off limits. Back brace? C'mon...

Seems to me that the right to use the name "Bill Monroe" should expire with Mr. Monroe. Apparently not, legalistically, but it still weirds me out. Probably my issue, not one the general public shares.

[Tobin]

If Bill Monroe's estate wants to make money, that's their right.

If Monroe fans want to buy some of his stuff, that's their right also.

Why should this be made out to be a moral issue?

I'm not sure anyone has made it into a moral issue, but it is certainly an issue of taste and social decorum. Selling off one's earthly possessions is, of course, normal when someone shuffles off their mortal coil. And I can even see it being normal to sell off the possessions of celebrities for collectors, when those possessions relate to what made them famous. A lot of what we're talking about here would indeed be collectible to some people.

But what creeps me out, or seems "ghoulish" is the mention of things like his back brace. To me, that's like selling off the man's underwear and socks.

I also dislike the selling of his likeness or image. Obviously, his image has and will continue to be iconic. But selling the rights to it seems to imply and allow the future use of his face and name for commercial purposes that he may not have liked. And now that he is dead, he doesn't have much choice. I can say for certain that I would not want my name or face to be sold off after my death for commercial purposes to people I didn't know in life, for purposes I can only imagine. It seems disrespectful of the dead. Does it border on a moral issue? Well, possibly.

Colonel Sanders was mentioned in an earlier post, and I think that's a good example. KFC has trashed the image of the Colonel by making these bizarre commercials that border on creepy (I find the "Crispy Colonel" revolting). But imagine if they took old footage of the actual Colonel and digitally altered it to make him say things or do things that he would not have done in life, or would have been adamantly opposed to. In this day and age of technology, anyone who buys the rights to Bill Monroe could easily do that and nobody could stop them. It may be legal for them to do if they own the rights, but morally and ethically it would be very questionable.

*edit: Ha! allenhopkins had nearly the same thoughts I did, but posted while I was typing.

[NursingDaBlues]

IANAL disclaimer again -- however, "Fair Use" in copyright law allows a wide range of non-commercial use of photos, film, and video (up to a point) without paying royalties. If you use Bill's image in a commercial context, for profit, then royalties would kick in. As they should.

I guess my question is who makes the determination of “Fair Use?” Sometimes the trademark/copyright owner and/or the attorneys who represent them can get overly zealous in their claims of infringement. In many cases the one who has the most money determines the outcome.

Here’s an example of what I'm talking about: a business owner that I know shares the same name as a well-known brewing company. A few years ago, he was notified to cease and desist using his personal name in the title of his business (not associated with any food/beverages including alcohol) because it infringed on the name of the brewer and could “cause confusion in the minds of the public.” He told me that he was afraid that he would have to change the business name because he just couldn’t afford the cost to fight this claim.

So, let’s say that someone on this forum scrapes together enough cash to produce a CD with a sleeve that features him/her in front of a personal summer retreat. Then let’s say that person receives official correspondence from attorneys representing the Bill Monroe Estate that the personal summer retreat bears a striking resemblance to Uncle Pen’s Cabin and that its likeness infringes on the integrity of the estate. And further that the artist has to scrap the sleeves or pay royalties. So what does it cost to fight this battle? Can the artist afford the costs to fight it? If not, then who determined “Fair Use?”

[sblock]

If Bill Monroe's estate wants to make money, that's their right.

If Monroe fans want to buy some of his stuff, that's their right also.

Why should this be made out to be a moral issue?

Because it IS a moral issue, and not a judicial one! There's an enormous difference between what you are permitted to do and what you might choose to do. No one on this forum has questioned the legality of this enterprise. We are questioning the propriety of it. I agree with the others who have pointed out that this comes across as a pretty creepy money grab, given the actual choice of items and rights being auctioned off. Yes, it might be perfectly legal. It's also pretty tasteless, if you ask me, and -- to my way of thinking -- it sullies the image of a great musician.

[foldedpath]

Seems to me that the right to use the name "Bill Monroe" should expire with Mr. Monroe. Apparently not, legalistically, but it still weirds me out. Probably my issue, not one the general public shares.

I think the context matters. I doubt many would object to someone putting on a "Bill Monroe Memorial Bluegrass Festival." Or if Gibson wanted to market a "Bill Monroe Special Edition" of a mandolin. Maybe with a small percentage of proceeds going to music education, which helps soften the purely commercial aspect of using the name. That's the best-case scenario.

"Bill Monroe Brand BBQ Sauce" is where it gets into dicey territory.

That's where one would hope that whoever buys the name and likeness (if it sells at all) has some sensitivity, and also some common sense. Too much of this kind of thing kills off the value of the name.

[ccravens]

Appreciate the thoughtful posts re my issue of morality.

Like sblock said, it seems to be a moral issue, and you are making moral judgments (which I have no problem with, BTW!!), especially when descriptive words like "creepy" "gholish" are used.

After careful consideration, I need to put something in my will so my sons don't try to capitalize by using my name and likeness when I die!! 'Cause my BBQ sauce is legendary...

[Willie Poole]

I hesitated to respond to this post because things that I have heard may not have merit BUT Campbell Mercer headed a group that invested quite a bit of promised money to buy a lot of things that were part of Monroe`s estate including his mandolin and some property at "The old homestead",they couldn`t come up with all of the money so it might just be that this is his group trying to recoup some of their loses by selling every thing that was in the deal, I do know he lost the right to hold his festival at that property and he had to move it to another spot and build another stage and camping grounds...I wonder if he could be contacted to see if he is in fact part of this deal...Myself, I don`t really care since I am not interested in any of the stuff and he wouldn`t book my band on his festival......

Willie

[MikeEdgerton]

PS. Lisa Marie Presley did this with Elvis's estate in 2004.

See my link above.

Elvis is still making money for someone.

Thank you very much.

[billkilpatrick]

I once saw a Youtube video of an elderly gentleman talking about his Bill Monroe Limited Edition Mandolin to his family - I'd guess - all gathered round a kitchen table. And while I'd love to own one and wouldn't object to anyone else owning one, the reverence shown to the old guy and to this mandolin, as it was passed around, was alarming. Hard to describe it but there's an expression people get sometimes when they feel they're in the presence of "greatness" - hushed silence, knitted eyebrows, wan smiles and looks which say everyone's about to blub or take a very solemn oath. I appreciate that to some, Bill Monroe was a bearer of culture, a champion - an icon - much more than just a really, really good musician. But to me this kind of adoring fan stuff is misplaced and embarrassing.

[FLATROCK HILL]

I once saw a Youtube video of an elderly gentleman talking about his Bill Monroe Limited Edition Mandolin to his family - I'd guess - all gathered round a kitchen table. And while I'd love to own one and wouldn't object to anyone else owning one, the reverence shown to the old guy and to this mandolin, as it was passed around, was alarming. Hard to describe it but there's an expression people get sometimes when they feel they're in the presence of "greatness" - hushed silence, knitted eyebrows, wan smiles and looks which say everyone's about to blub or take a very solemn oath. I appreciate that to some, Bill Monroe was a bearer of culture, a champion - an icon - much more than just a really, really good musician. But to me this kind of adoring fan stuff is misplaced and embarrassing.

Can't say for sure of course but this may be the video you saw:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NuMAxWmok2k

In any case, it seems to somewhat fit your description.

Maybe you're right. Maybe the "adoring fan stuff is misplaced and embarrassing" to some. To me, this not-so-polished video is just some regular people who want to share something they are passionate about. The old guy is obviously very proud of his mandolin and a big fan of Bill Monroe. And the son (doing the filming) seems to be proud of the fact that his old man is so enthused.
Seems silly maybe, but sometimes it means a lot just to be passionate or enthusiastic about anything.

(I don't think all of the facts or claims made in that video would stand up in a court of law though.)

[Timbofood]

There's "Legal" and, there's just as importantly, what is "Right". Sometimes they go hand in hand sometimes they do not. It will all become really sad when we start seeing "Bill Monroe fireplace poker and mandolin kits" I suppose. Sorry gang, that wasn't good taste I will be in my corner if anyone wants me.

[allenhopkins]

...it seems to be a moral issue, and you are making moral judgments (which I have no problem with, BTW!!), especially when descriptive words like "creepy" "gho[u]lish" are used. After careful consideration, I need to put something in my will so my sons don't try to capitalize by using my name and likeness when I die!! 'Cause my BBQ sauce is legendary...

Actually, Creepy Goulash is very popular in Transylvania...might be enhanced by Cravens' Legendary BBQ Sauce.

All kiddin' aside, my objections aren't around morality, but, as Tobin opines, taste. Carrying on the name and legacy of a great musician is one thing, whatever the legal requirements involved. (By the way, shouldn't Gibson Inc. jump at the chance to acquire rights to the "Bill Monroe" name? Might make up for their dropping the ball on "Lloyd Loar," the F-model silhouette, etc.)

Selling the contents of the great musician's credit card case, his clothing, and his medical devices seems, in contrast, to at least verge on the "creepy." Hey, I watch American Pickers bidding on one of Rick Nielsen's (Cheap Trick guitarist) signature checkered shirts -- bargaining with Nielsen himself for it! Go for it, if the guy doesn't mind selling you the clothes out of his closet!

But Dickens' depiction of a second-hand dealer bargaining for the shirt Scrooge was laid out in, keeps recurring to my mind. A festival with Monroe's name on it, sure -- think about MerleFest, going all these years. Buying his back brace so I can display it in the rec room, maybe not so much.

[Tobin]

It will all become really sad when we start seeing "Bill Monroe fireplace poker and mandolin kits" I suppose. Sorry gang, that wasn't good taste I will be in my corner if anyone wants me.

Dude, I would SO buy a Bill Monroe commemorative fireplace poker!

[FLATROCK HILL]

Dude, I would SO buy a Bill Monroe commemorative fireplace poker!

Yeah! I think you're onto something there Timothy. Put me down for one of those too.

[Canoedad]

You mean I can buy the right to chase people around and sue 'em for using Bill Monroe's name and likeness? Sounds expensive.

[Mark Gunter]

Re: the BBQ sauce issue mentioned a few times above ... I can't see where this is in bad taste, if it tastes good. Call it Bill Monroe and the Bluegrass Boys Hot Licks BBQ Sauce. Where's the moral problem? Pass some this way.

[Tobin]

Re: the BBQ sauce issue mentioned a few times above ... I can't see where this is in bad taste, if it tastes good. Call it Bill Monroe and the Bluegrass Boys Hot Licks BBQ Sauce. Where's the moral problem? Pass some this way.

Oh, come on!

Everybody knows that a Bill Monroe themed BBQ sauce should be named Southern Flavor!

[Mark Gunter]

Oh, come on!

Everybody knows that a Bill Monroe themed BBQ sauce should be named Southern Flavor!

Sounds good to me as long as it's in good taste - er, tastes good

[billkilpatrick]

Can't say for sure of course but this may be the video you saw:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NuMAxWmok2k

In any case, it seems to somewhat fit your description.

Maybe you're right. Maybe the "adoring fan stuff is misplaced and embarrassing" to some. To me, this not-so-polished video is just some regular people who want to share something they are passionate about. The old guy is obviously very proud of his mandolin and a big fan of Bill Monroe. And the son (doing the filming) seems to be proud of the fact that his old man is so enthused.
Seems silly maybe, but sometimes it means a lot just to be passionate or enthusiastic about anything.

(I don't think all of the facts or claims made in that video would stand up in a court of law though.)

That wasn't the video - I looked but couldn't find it. But just to keep this light and conversational …

Bill Monroe was an incredible musician. "Uncle Pen" is a wonderful tune. The air-conditioner in Pendleton Vandiver's cabin has nothing - no part of nothin' - to do with either.