Death and Dying: Why is it wrong to profit from someone's death?

Question

Following the death of Whitney Houston, Sony (the record label that owns her music) increased the price of her albums on itunes.

On doing this they were called ''greedy'' and ''shameful''. But I honestly don't understand why. We live in a capitalist society and it's not as if Sony killed her. (I do agree that it's immoral to kill someone in order to make money)

Obviously sales of her albums were going to go up. Why not increase prices to make more money?

I am in a similar situation. I live in southern California(Orange County) so there is a large Hispanic population that is mourning the death of a famous Hispanic singer( Jenny Rivera). So my idea was to make memorial shirts. I already own a very successful business, and I wanted to cash in on this situation, but my wife does not think this is a good idea. What should I do?

(In case you're wondering, I personally have absolutely no problem with someone making money off my death)

Answer 1

I don't think anyone says it's wrong unless it's someone who's marketing tee shirts about the death of the kids in Newtown. Things like that are really wrong.



There are a couple of companies who purchase the rights to an actor or actresses brand from the family and they are making millions every year from selling the rights to another company to use a photo of the deceased star or the name of the person or more money for a combo of both. Marilyn Monroe has been dead for years and she just appeared in a Jadore perfume commercial! They paid big for that usage. Happens all the time. Elvis Presley's family is making bunches off his brand.

Answer 2

The problem with your idea is infringement suits.

Jenny's name was her trademark and her record company and family wouldn't want others cashing in on her name.



Then the pictures you use are considered private property. Even though they are pictures made public in tabloids and stuff, a photographer sold those pictures for her agent to use and distribute.



So unless you have the money to pay off a lawyer and cover millions in dollars in lawsuits, my advice would be not to do it.

Answer 3

you would be interior the incorrect area, my pal. yet i will answer your query besides. i do no longer think of that's inaccurate, you could choose for it. understand that this occasion is amazingly distinctive from what Sony did with Whitney Houston's albums. the version is interior the service presented for the human beings. Her albums have been already obtainable to purchase, Sony only capitalized in this risk by ability of elevating the charges (and opportunists tend to be frowned upon by ability of society). on your concern, you're actual offering a service that's no longer obtainable in any different case. If human beings purchase the shirts, it ability they desire to purchase them. that's in comparison to you have been already promoting those shirts and you only raised the charges to learn greater money. you're giving them a decision that they did no longer initially have. they do no longer could purchase the shirts, yet now they'd in the event that they desire to. In Sony's concern, the album became already obtainable on the industry, they did no longer could do something. they only raised the charges to extend their own own benefit. on your concern, you're offering a service to them that they does not have in any different case.

Answer 4

uhh...wrong section dude