You see them all over the net for sale. Jewelry pieces inspired by celebrities. You may come across an eternity ring offered on HSN through Legends Jewelry. The inspiration for the design of the ring was derived from the eternity band, which Joe DiMaggio gave to Marliyn Monroe. The description of the ring on the HSN website states it's inspired by the Monroe/DiMaggio eternity band.

This brings up the question of who licenses such products and/or are the products actually licensed or, just inspired. We know what they say about inspiration and perspiration, however, how much perspiration does it take to attach a celebrity name to a piece of jewelry and wait for the cash to come rolling in?

In 1998, the Franklin Mint produced products bearing the likeness of Princess Diana. In response, the estate of Princess Diana sued the Franklin Mint and won. In a nutshell, it was found that the Mint did not have the consent to use the identity and trademark of Diana to profit from her death.

However, the law can be a tricky thing and many can fall on the sword of justice, when it comes to where a celebrity (such as Marilyn Monroe) was born, where she died and how ones legal State of residence can determine who can use your name and image after death.

Monroe left the bulk of her personal belongings to Lee Strasberg. Strasberg was to distribute the leftovers to Monroe's friends and colleagues. While Monroe's desire was to enrich her friends with her belongings, Strasberg appears to have had another idea and stored all of Monroe's property in a warehouse and then willed them to his wife Anna.

Enter stage right, nephew of Monroe's business manager - who gets sued by Anna Strasberg  and this legal mess ultimately brings up the question of determining who holds the rights of publicity on images of Monroe. Of course, Strasberg is the one who files the lawsuit against the children of the four photographers in order to determine who owns the photo image rights.

Here's where the sticky wicket comes into play. Millions in profits from the dead actress would be determined by where she was legally listed as a resident and where she died. We all know she died in California but, was a legal resident of New York.

Long story, short. In 2007, a judge in  New York decides Monroe's rights to publicity died with her at her death, however, Arnold the Terminator, decides to dispense his own brand of justice in California and gets a piece of legislation passed that protects the rights of those who received a "residuary publicity" (such as Strasberg) for 70 years after a celebrities death.

The question of creating jewelry pieces inspired by celebrities and then displaying their image (or images) of that celebrity along side that piece of jewelry - in all forms of media - is a hard one to answer. Sites such as Emitations post images of Prince William and Kate Middleton on their homepage. There is an entire page devoted to Kate Middleton and her Royal Ring. The ring is offered in various sizes and metals.

Scattered about Kate's pages of jewelry is jewelry inspired by Princess Diana. Diana's images are also displayed next to pieces of jewelry that may or may not be inspired. A set of pearl earrings adorn the ears of Diana in an image of one product, however, the image is so small that I really can't tell if the item in the image is inspired by anything I see in the Diana image. In fact, the pearl button earrings offered by Emitations do not appear to  be anything other than pearl button style earrings, however, add an image of Diana to the mix and there's an appeal to this product line.

The answer in using celebrity images in conjunction in selling inspired jewelry products may come in the form of a licensing agreement with Getty Images. In this case, a site may be paying a small licensing fee to use images on their website (only) and then associate those images with a movie star. It's possible to license Getty Images for just about every Academy Award show where the runway serves as the spot to accumulate images of celebrities and their jewelry.

In the end, Emitation's website disclaimer states:

The celebrities, movies, television series and advertisements depicting celebrities (including, without limitation, the corresponding studio, production company, distribution company or any party affiliated with the movie and/or television series and/or advertisements) pictured on Emitations.com do not sponsor or endorse the products sold on Emitations.com and are not associated or affiliated with Emitations.com. Emitations.com's use of the celebrities pictured, either individually or in a movie and/or television series and/or advertisements, are for informational purposes only, in order to demonstrate the similarity of Emitations.com's products with those worn by celebrities.

Is it possible that a Disclaimer protects one from being sued by celebrities (and their heirs) for profits generated off of products that were inspired by their images or, can the seller of the products claim they simply used the images for informational purposes only? I guess that may be lawsuit for another day