An interesting story on NPR yesterday explored a unique lawsuit pending against the John Dillinger Museum in Hammond, Indiana. It seems one of Dillinger’s descendents doesn’t care for the museum’s representation of Dilliinger as a murderer (certainly a thief, but not a convicted killer). Since he can’t sue them for slander, he is invoking his ”rights of publicity,” which restrict the use of someone’s image or name for commercial purposes. In some states, that right extends to an individual’s heirs.
The first court agreed with the heir. The museum is now appealing the decision.
Whether or not a museum is a commercial activity or a form of free expression is one of the questions up for review. The fact that this particular museum is affiliated with chamber of commerce as a tourist draw probably doesn’t help matters. Its seemingly brash approach to its subject matter also begs the question of its ”museum cred.”
But the larger question is a fascinating one: At what point does an individual’s or heir’s rights to their name and image end, and the public exploration of history begin? And in an increasingly exploitative world, how might cultural institutions need to explore and rethink the burden of that balance?
Many museums will likely be watching the results of this case, as will I.
