The BBC report that Aretha Franklin's family have 'denounced' a new biopic produced by National Geographic. The family say that they have been cut out of the process and 'disrespected.'

The article raises interesting questions about how to create a succession plan for those creative individuals - artists, musicians, actors, producers, authors, comedians; the list goes on and on - whose artistic legacy will outlive the person themselves. 

Such individuals need to consider the same succession issues as anybody else, such as who will be entitled to what and when, who will look after the assets, what succession laws apply, what taxes will need to be paid on death etc. But creative clients from many fields will have an additional consideration: what do I want my legacy to be, how do I want my body of work to be preserved and built upon, and who should be responsible? 

These sorts of questions may produce a different set of answers to the classic questions of the 'who gets what' variety. One creative client may be happy that their body of work is used for maximum monetary gain, ultimately for the financial benefit of their family. Another might want to preserve their artistic legacy over and above all financial considerations. But these things require thought.

The consequence of such discussions can often be a much greater focus on the intellectual property rights that a person has, where they sit, and how they can be protected. Getting to grips with these issues can have commercial benefits during lifetime as well as after death.

Such a debate is a critical part of any succession planning discussion with creative clients - but one that is all too often overlooked.