Buzz
When a great leader passes away, or a civilization crumbles, or an artist takes their final breath, the one inevitable thought on everyone's mind is their legacy. This typically leads to scholars analyzing their life's contributions or their loved ones establishing foundations to preserve their memory. More rarely, it involves the outright exploitation of that legacy, transforming it into something that undermines their accomplishments.
10. Nelson Mandela's Family Exploited His Name for Commercial Gain
The death of Nelson Mandela in late 2013 sparked a wave of sorrow across the globe. A man who had reshaped history and fought for democracy amidst years of oppression, Mandela's passing assured that his name would be synonymous with 'freedom.' His family, however, had different plans. They sought to immortalize his name not through honor, but as a symbol of commercialism.
Even before his death, some of Mandela's descendants had begun leveraging his name to market products. But following his passing, this practice exploded in scale. His name and likeness have since been plastered on everything from T-shirts with his prison number to baseball caps featuring his face, and even mid-tier wines (despite Mandela’s clear request to never be associated with alcohol or tobacco). At one point, there was even a reality TV series themed around Mandela.
What’s even more troubling is the move by two family members to remove anti-apartheid activists from the Nelson Mandela Trust’s board, aiming to centralize their control over his legacy. They argue that Mandela's every action was motivated by the desire to secure a future for his family. This claim feels like a slap in the face to those who believed his efforts were rooted in a commitment to democracy and human rights.
9. The Andy Warhol Foundation Endorsed Multiple Forged Works
Depending on one’s perspective, Andy Warhol is either one of the greatest artists to ever live or one of the most controversial. There's no denying his influence—his soup can prints and celebrity portraits are among the most recognizable artworks worldwide, and his pieces regularly fetch millions of dollars at auction. However, some of these works are suspected to be forgeries.
In 2013, it was revealed that the foundation Andy Warhol had established to manage his posthumous legacy had long abandoned its original mission in favor of generating massive profits. The board members managed this by using creative accounting practices and failing to meet the charitable contributions the Foundation was obligated to provide. Moreover, they allegedly sold forged works seized from the studio of one of Warhol’s associates. After declaring these pieces as fakes and calling the signatures 'shaky,' the Foundation is said to have sold them anyway, purely for financial gain.
Although Andy Warhol was undoubtedly motivated by financial success, even he would likely be astonished by the lengths his foundation has gone to. In a legal battle against the foundation, the Attorney General’s Office argued that the foundation’s actions were a threat to 'the national treasure of Andy Warhol’s artistic legacy.'
8. Stieg Larsson’s Family Hired an Inexperienced Writer to Finish His Books
When best-selling author Stieg Larsson passed away from a heart attack at the age of 50, he left behind only three completed books. Despite having planned a series of 10, the three books of the Millennium trilogy tied together nicely, concluding the saga of hacker Lisbeth Salander and journalist Mikael Blomkvist.
That is, until it was discovered that Larsson had a partially completed fourth book among his belongings. Some of it was written, and notes outlined the direction of the story. With the right writer or a talented crime author, a respectful conclusion could have been achieved. Instead, his family hired a writer known for soccer biographies to finish the book. It was a literary misstep, akin to hiring an ESPN columnist to edit J.D. Salinger.
The decision infuriated Eva Gabrielsson, Larsson’s partner of 30 years. She argued that the new author, David Lagercrantz, was an unsuitable choice due to his lack of the activist background and feminist commitment that were central to Larsson’s work, particularly in the Millennium trilogy. Despite her objections, Swedish law ensured that all of Larsson's intellectual property was passed to his family upon his death, leaving Gabrielsson powerless to influence decisions regarding his legacy.
7. Bach’s Alcoholic Son Sold His Father’s Manuscripts
Johann Sebastian Bach is often considered the greatest composer in history. His music continues to be performed and his approximately 1,000 compositions remain the subject of study, 265 years after his death. While his legacy stands strong, one of his sons did his best to undermine it. Wilhelm Friedemann Bach, an alcoholic composer who inherited half of his father’s work in 1750 (with the rest going to a brother), squandered or sold off nearly all of it.
At the time of his death, Bach was far from the towering figure in music that he is regarded as today. Nonetheless, he was respected enough that his son, C.P.E. Bach, thought it important to preserve and publish his half of his father's estate. Unfortunately, Wilhelm Friedemann Bach had more personal issues to contend with. As his father passed away, Wilhelm was descending into paranoia and alcoholism, leading to severe financial hardship. Faced with a choice between preserving his inheritance or facing destitution, Wilhelm chose the latter, tarnishing his father’s legacy. While most of Bach’s compositions have survived, a few pieces remain lost.
6. The Repeated Efforts to Create a GDR Theme Park
Ideologies like Nazism and Communism have left an indelible mark on world history, which is why sites like Auschwitz and the Holodomor monument in Ukraine exist to remember these dark chapters. Sadly, many former East Germans did not grasp the gravity of this history. Over the years, there have been multiple failed attempts to transform the Stasi’s legacy of fear and brutality into a theme park attraction.
In the years following the fall of the Berlin Wall, former GDR residents began experiencing 'ostalgie'—a sentimental longing for the days of Communist rule. This started with the sale of foods once popular under the regime, but soon expanded to include kitschy items like Marx T-shirts and GDR-branded condoms. Things reached an absurd low in 2003, when a developer proposed a theme park based on life in East Berlin. Visitors would first have to pass through a border checkpoint, monitored by actors playing Stasi agents, creating what the LA Times described as 'a kitschy version of a spy novel,' stripped of the real-life oppression of the former Soviet bloc.
Though the plan was eventually scrapped, others jumped on the ostalgie bandwagon. In 2004, the New York Times reported that a German investor had purchased a former Stasi prison with plans to turn it into a GDR-themed hotel. Guests would sleep on cold floors, be served unappetizing meals, and wear uniforms to experience what it was like to be an inmate. Protests from former prisoners ultimately halted the project.
5. James Joyce’s Grandson Attempts to Sue Everyone
James Joyce, widely regarded as one of the greatest writers of his time, created novels so complex and sometimes barely readable that they demand in-depth analysis. Yet, for many years, research into Joyce's works was obstructed by his grandson, who made a habit of suing anyone who dared to write about him.
In 1982, Stephen James Joyce took control of the Joyce estate and the copyrights to his grandfather’s works. Upset by a biography that revealed James Joyce’s intimate letters to his wife, Stephen swiftly created what came to be known as a 'copyright dictatorship.' Authors and scholars were sued for millions to prevent the publication of new works about Joyce. Even quoting a snippet from Ulysses could lead to legal turmoil. When the Irish government planned public events for the 2004 Bloomsday, a celebration of the date Ulysses is set, Stephen threatened legal action, prompting the country to pass emergency legislation to block his attempts.
Some of the lawsuits took on a comedic tone. For instance, performance artist Adam Harvey memorized a passage from Finnegans Wake, only to receive a furious letter from Stephen accusing him of copyright infringement, even though he had done nothing wrong. For three decades, Stephen stifled Joyce scholarship, preventing any meaningful analysis of his grandfather's literary contributions. In 2012, however, the estate's copyright expired, and it became legal to recite Ulysses on video without fear of being sued—leaving room to send the video to Stephen, just for the fun of it.
4. Tintin’s Copyright Holders Are Really, Really Weird
When Georges Remi, better known as Herge, passed away in 1983, he left behind one of the most beloved comic book franchises in the world. The Tintin series has sold millions of copies and even inspired a Spielberg-directed film. Yet, in recent years, Belgian fans have been expressing growing concern over Herge’s legacy. The new custodians of Tintin's copyright are known for their litigious nature and eccentricities.
After Herge’s death, the rights to his work were passed to his mistress-turned-wife, Fanny Vlamynck. She then entrusted the management of these rights to her partner, English shopkeeper Nick Rodwell. Since 1990, Rodwell has had the final say on all things related to Tintin, leading to some bizarre situations. A few years ago, Rodwell began a blog on the official Tintin website, which quickly devolved into a platform for scathing attacks on journalists he disliked. One post targeted a French journalist, accusing her of having a “sexual problem” in her youth. Another mocked a journalist’s autistic child, while a third made fun of a critic’s status as a widower.
There is also the alleged blacklist that Rodwell keeps, which bans anyone on it from reproducing images of Tintin. He also infamously sued a Tintin fan for writing five essays about the character, which were shared with only a small group of 300-500 friends and colleagues. No wonder Rodwell has earned the title of the “most despised figure in publishing.”
3. Franklin Mint Takes Legal Action Against Princess Diana’s Charity Over Insensitive Grounds
Unlike others on this list, the Franklin Mint never obtained permission to use Princess Diana’s image for their products. The rights to her legacy were granted to the Princess Diana Memorial Fund, a charity established in 1997 following her death, to continue her humanitarian efforts worldwide. Despite this, Franklin Mint attempted to profit from Diana-themed dolls without authorization, prompting the Fund to take legal action against them. What followed was a legal and media frenzy.
Thanks to a loophole in Californian law, the Fund couldn’t prevent Franklin Mint from producing the dolls. In retaliation, Franklin Mint countersued the charity for malicious prosecution. Eventually, the Fund was forced to settle outside of court for £1 million.
To put it bluntly, Franklin Mint had no more entitlement to Diana’s likeness than anyone else. The Fund had explicitly forbidden them from selling Diana dolls for profit. Nevertheless, Franklin Mint not only secured the right to sell Diana-themed merchandise but also severely harmed the charity that originally held those rights. The lawsuit had a devastating impact on the Fund’s charity work, affecting 127 projects worldwide, all for Franklin Mint to continue producing their infamous low-quality collectibles.
2. Sony Enforces Copyright On King’s ‘I Have A Dream’ Speech
Every now and then, a speech emerges that changes the course of history. The Gettysburg Address is one such example. Winston Churchill’s iconic “we shall fight on the beaches” speech is another. But perhaps the most significant of all is Martin Luther King’s “I Have A Dream” speech. Delivered on August 28, 1963, it envisioned a future of equality, where races would find common ground, a future where everyone had a place. Sony’s response? They began suing anyone who used it.
After King’s death in 1968, the rights to his works passed to his family, who became increasingly litigious, suing those who reproduced his words without permission. As if that weren’t troubling enough, in 2009, the King family entered into a contract with EMI Publishing (now a part of Sony) over the copyright to the “I Have A Dream” speech. Since then, the way EMI and the King family have handled the speech has been widely criticized. Documentaries that sympathetically cover the Civil Rights era have been denied permission to use it, while a French company, Alcatel, was allowed to use King’s words to advertise their Internet service.
Thanks to the aggressive lawsuits filed by EMI, it’s now nearly impossible to find the entire speech online. To listen to it in its entirety, you’re required to pay $20. As one of King’s close associates told 60 Minutes in 2001, “[King] spent his whole life trying to communicate ideas for free. To communicate, not to sell.”
1. The Tacky Merchandise Of 9/11
When two planes crashed into the Twin Towers on the morning of September 11, it was clear that this moment would be etched in history. However, we could never have anticipated the way it would be commercialized by countless merchandisers eager to exploit that tragic day’s legacy.
Over time, these products have done their best to dilute the magnitude of the tragedy felt by millions. From $50 coffee mugs to commemorative mailboxes priced at $12,000, “Never Forget” ties, 9/11 wedding cake toppers, and even Twin Towers boxer shorts have appeared online, making a select few extremely wealthy. You can even purchase 9/11 commemorative wine for $19.11—a price that both honors the memory and conveniently adds an extra $10 to the seller’s profit. This is before we even mention advertisers capitalizing on a national tragedy to sell products like mattresses.
Meanwhile, at the National September 11 Memorial Museum’s gift shop, the intention was clearly to help fund the memorial’s maintenance. However, the seemingly tone-deaf inclusion of items like coffee mugs and key chains seriously offended the families of the victims.
