According to the official "Fact Sheet" from the Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles, the DMV, in conjunction with some private partners, currently offers self-service kiosks at 12 DMV offices and 26 private locations throughout the Silver State; collectively, the machines handle some 50,000 transactions (including registration renewals, suspended-insurance reinstatement, driver-history printouts, and license renewals/duplicate orders) per month. A few of the kiosks were upgraded recently to accept cash as well as credit cards and, as far as we know, they all feature that Elvis "soundalike" message when your transaction is all wrapped up -- a "Vegas" touch available only at the kiosks, as the answer to the final query on DMV's FAQ page explains:
A: Unfortunately not, Elvis has left the building.
As to whether any licensing fees are concerned, the answer is no, to the very best of our knowledge, but the wider implications of this question shed light on one of the most notoriously controlling celebrity estates and the history of how Elvis Presley Enterprises (EPE) has attempted to police The King's image and its commercial exploitation in the years following (and even prior to) the performer's death.
In the course of our research, we came across a very interesting paper by D.S. Wall, published back in 2004 in Vol. 2, No. 3 of Entertainment Law, and titled "Policing Elvis: Legal Action and the Shaping of Post-Mortem Celebrity Culture as Contested Space." In it, Wall explores the "paradox of circulation and restriction, whereby the holder of an intellectual property right in a celebrity culture needs to circulate it in order to exploit its popularity and thus generate income streams, while simultaneously regulating the ways that the celebrity culture is consumed in order to maintain legal control over it in order to preserve those same income streams."
In other words, on the one hand, the entity/entities entitled to make money from an artist's legacy face a tricky balance of allowing enough "organic" activity and promotional gestures to keep that legacy relevant and in the public consciousness, which necessitates a gentler touch than the stranglehold that EPE initially sought to impose over Elvis' likeness and image; simultaneously, however, while "peripheral" exploitation/celebration of Elvis may be tolerated to that end, any major merchandising or other income streams must come under the aegis of the estate and wind up in their coffers, or the injunctions and lawsuits start flying (as they have in the case of some commercially produced artworks, for example. To quote Wall's paper once more, "Because most Elvis art sits on the borderline of commercialism it is prone to legal action and although individual works of Elvis art are ignored, even if sold, some of the more popular and commercially produced types, for example, the Mexican Velvet art form, are perceived as problematic and become a focus for legal action."
When Elvis Presley passed away in 1977, the laws governing privacy were still somewhat nebulous and although Col. Parker envisaged exercising as tight a control over his protege in death as he had in life, in reality it became apparent that Parker's position was weak on account of the post-mortem intellectual property rights (trademark, publicity rights, copyright) relating to Elvis Presley were not fully established, especially in relation to the right of publicity. Not only was the law itself in a state of flux, but many of Elvis' trademarks, although established, had yet to be legally registered at the time of his death.
As Wall explains, in the intervening years since Presley's death, "post-mortem celebrity culture has been reshaped and so has our understanding of it, and these processes continue due to an expansion in the public consumption of Elvis. Notably, through the further embedding of Elvis within a global culture; through impersonation/simulation, Elvis art, an increasing spiritual following, and the Internet" with "each process taking place despite the legal controls that are in effect and each gnawing away at the very basis of the intellectual property rights over Elvis: its exclusivity."
To put it simply, does "Elvis culture" belong in the public domain, or are his descendants correct in their assumption that his name and likeness are their lawful and exclusive property?
The years immediately following Elvis' death saw a proliferation of questionable products trading on the star's name and its social caché -- from "Love Me Tender Dog Chunks," via "Always Elvis Wine," through to the much sought-after "Elvis Sweat" souvenir, marketed under the catchy slogan "Let his perspiration be your inspiration." (Inspiration to what?!) The strip mall vendors made good money, while the estate saw little in the way of royalty payments.
By 1979, the estate was spiraling toward bankruptcy so a move was made to oust Parker, whose dubious business practices had come to light, and to essentially put his widow Priscilla, and her advisers, at the helm with the aim of protecting daughter Lisa Marie's inheritance. Through a series of landmark cases that took place over the next few years, the extent -- and limits -- of the estate's legal rights were tested and established.
Probably no other performer has spawned a culture of impersonators, both professional and amateur, in the way that Elvis has. There were already several Elvis impersonators working while Elvis was still alive, including Larry Seth, who copied Elvis' clothing and jewelery, distinctive pose and body moments, and imitated his singing voice as he covered well-known Elvis songs in his stage show. The estate launched a two-pronged attack, aimed both at Seth's merchandising efforts and his performances, but in an interesting result, the court granted a preliminary injunction against Seth's sale of celebrity paraphernalia, but it did not prevent the live performances on the grounds that they had no adverse impact on the estate's interests (it's not as if he was drawing paying audiences away from the real thing, since seeing Elvis perform live was no longer an option), while also taking into consideration first amendment rights regarding freedom of expression. Furthering the whole ambiguity around such scenarios, however, at the same time the court did acknowledge that Elvis Presley's right of publicity survived his death and became part of his estate.
Returning to the premise outlined at the start of this article, essentially what you can, or can't do, relating to Elvis and his image, seems to boil down to a) Is it in any way offensive, demeaning, or likely to do damage to his legacy/image and/or its economic potential? b) Is it a commercial enterprise in its own right that could be seen to be appropriating monies that should, by rights, be going to EPE?
If the recorded message at the DMV kiosk involved an Elvis-costumed impersonator performing part of a known Elvis song, then the musical component would absolutely carry copyright and royalty implications; but for the "disembodied" voice of an actor to say a few trademark -- but not "trademarked" in the way that Paris Hilton legally registered the phrase "That's hot" -- words in an accent that's recognizably imitating that of Elvis, but in a context that is fun and positive and purely informational, would be pushing the envelope regarding what the estate could realistically seek to control or derive any kind of residual payment from.
On the other hand, the move by EPE recently to block the proposed naming of a Las Vegas street could be deemed a protective move -- perhaps they don't like that neighborhood behind the Riviera and don't want Elvis' name associated with it; or perhaps they think that it's enough for Elvis to already have two Las Vegas streets named for him and that more would begin to cheapen his name. Or perhaps their move to block the street naming was merely a tit-for-tat retaliation as part of the ongoing feud with Westgate Las Vegas, where money, image, and reputation definitely are at stake.
Finally, to address the last component of your question, we've come across no indication that there's any thought at the DMV to switch out Elvis' voice for any other Las Vegas-centric celebrity and we'd be surprised if there was anyone as recognizable, by voice alone, who'd fit the bill. Frank Sinatra is the only possible exception we can think of, and his estate is as notoriously litigious as that of Elvis, so if it ain't broke... This almost inspired us to make a foray into the celebrity announcements at McCarran International Airport, but we'll save that for another day (if anyone feels like asking us about them!)
