Last Will and Testament of Elvis A. Presley

This is a copy of the text of Elvis' last will and testament.

Click here to Buy a copy of Elvis' Will for only $1.00
 

---

Last Will And Testament Of Elvis A. Presley, Deceased

Filed August 22, 1977


Last Will And Testament of Elvis Presley


I, Elvis A. Presley, a resident and citizen of Shelby County, Tennessee, being of sound mind and disposing memory, do hereby make, publish and declare this instrument to be my last will and testament, hereby revoking any and all wills and codicils by me at any time heretofore made.

Valjo Music Publishing Corp. v. Elvis Presley Music (1957)

Johnny Otis

Overview: In this case, concerning the well-known Elvis song, Hound Dog, band leader Johnny Otis claims rights to 1/3 of the royalties as co-author of the song (in addition to Jerry Leiber and Mike Stoller) after Elvis' version proved so popular.

Even though Otis was entitled to 1/3 of the royalties from Willie Mae "Big Mama" Thornton's version, the court refused Otis' claim for royalties on the basis of co-authorship.

For further information see the related articles on The Discography and Wikipedia.

Elvis Presley Enterprises v. Capece (1998)

Overview: In this case, also known as "The Velvet Elvis Case," assignee and registrant of all trademarks, copyrights, and publicity rights belonging to the Elvis Presley estate sues operators of "The Velvet Elvis" restaurant for trademark infringement and dilution, and violation of its right of publicity in the name of Elvis Presley. In this opinion, the appellate court reverses and remands the ruling of the District Court.

Elvis Presley Enterprises v. Passport Video (2004)(Amended Dissent)

Overview: Various copyright holders sue video company over unauthorized use of copyrighted material in exhaustive 16-hour video documentary of Elvis' life.

Cocaine-Cola, the Velvet Elvis, and Anti-Barbie: Defending the Trademark and Publicity Rights to Cultural Icons

This lengthy article includes a section on Elvis and discusses the Russen and Capece cases.

Cocaine-Cola, the Velvet Elvis, and Anti-Barbie: Defending the Trademark and Publicity Rights to Cultural Icons, Fordham Intellectual Property, Media & Entertainment Law Journal Winter, 1998 (Harvard.edu)

Policing Elvis: Legal Action and the Shaping of Post-Mortem Celebrity Culture as Contested Space

This is a fairly detailed and scholary article outlining many of the post-mortem Elvis-related legal cases and how they have "shaped celebrity culture as contested space."

Download: Policing Elvis: Legal Action and the Shaping of Post-Mortem Celebrity Culture as Contested Space (PDF) David S. Wall, Entertainment Law, Vol.2, No.3, Autumn 2003, pp.35 – 69.

Elvis Presley Enterprises v. Capece (1996)

Overview: In this District Court case, also known as "The Velvet Elvis Case," assignee and registrant of all trademarks, copyrights, and publicity rights belonging to the Elvis Presley estate sues operators of "The Velvet Elvis" restaurant for trademark infringement and dilution, and violation of its right of publicity in the name of Elvis Presley. Here, the District Court finds for Capece, which was later reversed and remanded on appeal by the United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit(May 7, 1998).

Note: There is some wonderful Judicial Humor at the end of this opinion!

United States v. Dowling (1984)

Overview: In this criminal case (Bootleg Records Case) that reached the United States Supreme Court, the Defendant, Dowling, was convicted in the U.S. District Court for mail fraud, interstate transportation of stolen property, and conspiracy to transport stolen property interstate as a result of the sale and distribution of large quantities of bootleg recordings of Elvis Presley.

The Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit affirmed, and the U.S. Supreme Court then heard the case on petition for writ of certiorari (Dowling v. United States, 1985). One issue faced the Supreme Court, whether the interstate transportation of bootleg recordings, in infringement of copyright, violated the National Stolen Property Act (18 U.S.C. 2314). A majority of the Court held (with opinion by Justice Blackmun, dissent by Powell, joined by Burger and White) that infringement of copyright did not amount to "theft, conversion, or fraud."

Hawkins v. Graceland (2002)

Overview: Defendant, Graceland, moves to exclude the testimony of plaintiff's physician on the basis of violation of Rules 16 & 26 of the F.R.C.P. primarily concerning discovery and duty of disclosure.