Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
Family members of a famous 20th century Pentecostal pastor and evangelist did not have valid ownership claims for copyrights to some of the pastor’s photos, books and films, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in affirming a district court decision.
According to court records, Dr. Lester Frank Sumrall founded a church that became an empire.
At its peak the Lester Sumrall Evangelical Association (now LeSEA, Inc., or “LeSEA”) spread its message from South Bend, around the world through television, its ministry feeding the poor, and Sumrall’s own travels, writings, and media productions.
Those writings and productions were prolific: Sumrall registered 43 copyrights in his own name for books and films, and many other works went unregistered or were registered to LeSEA itself.
Sumrall involved his family in LeSEA’s business and ministry. He had three sons: Frank, Peter, and Stephen. Each worked in the ministry. When the three had children of their own, those grandchildren likewise joined the family business.
The eldest grandchild is Lester Sumrall, one of the plaintiffs in the case.
Lester and his namesake, Dr. Sumrall, were close.
As a boy, Lester would travel with his grandfather.
Then, when Lester was 18, he went to work for Sumrall (as head of LeSEA), serving as both associate pastor and assistant.
The travel continued, but at that point the two men would travel to a church, preach, and solicit donations.
Someone—usually another LeSEA employee—would take photos. Then they would return home, using the donations and photos to further LeSEA’s ministry.
One 1994 trip saw Lester and his grandfather travel deep into China, with the goal of supporting oppressed Chinese Christians.
The pair was accompanied only by two interpreters, so this time Lester took the photos. Some show the elder Sumrall speaking to a large local crowd. In one with special significance here, the “Traveler Photo,” Lester captured Sumrall posing with an elderly Chinese man. On the way home, Lester had the photos developed in Hong Kong.
Lester petitioned an Indiana probate court in April 2017 to open an estate for Sumrall.
In response, another of his cousins produced the will and at last Lester came to know Sumrall’s testamentary intentions. He had left some personal items to grandchildren, with the rest of his estate going to his sons in equal measure. Still, the probate court denied the petition. The estate, it explained, was empty after all this time. It held no assets.
Lester and the Lester Sumrall Family Trust (a vehicle for Frank’s interest) brought claims against LeSEA, its affiliate corporations, and Lester’s uncles and cousins now involved in the ministry.
They alleged that LeSEA took ownership of Sumrall’s copyrights, which should rightfully have been theirs and complained that LeSEA uses the Traveler Photo in its materials and took issue with LeSEA’s continuing use of Sumrall’s right of publicity.
The Indiana Northern District Court granted LeSEA’s motions to dismiss and for summary judgment, and the trust appealed the ruling to the 7th Circuit.
In its opinion, the 7th Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision, finding the trust’s claim for Sumrall’s works is untimely, while Lester’s Traveler Photo claim fails because LeSEA owns the photo’s copyright.
The court also rejected the trust’s contention that, even without owning half the right of publicity, it can bring a claim for an accounting
“And at any rate—notwithstanding its representations at oral argument—the Trust never pleaded a basis for such a claim. The allegations it identifies speak only to “use” of the right of publicity, never ownership,” the court’s opinion stated.
The case is Lester Sumrall and Lester Sumrall Family Trust v.LeSEA, Inc., et al., 23-2833.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.