If you liked it, then you should've bought the rights to it

To better understand the recent $20 million lawsuit filed against Beyoncé for alleged copyright infringement, it might help to start with Dracula.

In 1966, the heirs to Hollywood icon Béla Lugosi -- his wife and son -- sued Universal Pictures for merchandising Lugosi's likeness on a world of Count Dracula products. Dozens of Lugosi's Dracula products included plastic models, puzzles, belt buckles, trading cards, kites, clothing and swizzle sticks.

His family argued the studio was using property -- Lugosi's likeness -- which they had inherited, and which was not part of the actor's agreement with Universal. The case dragged on for 11 years, after which the Lugosis were awarded $70,000 and Universal was told to stop selling the actor's likeness. Their Pyrrhic victory was overturned in 1979 by the California Supreme Court.

In a broad way, the landmark case also introduced the idea of suing to protect a dead artist's rights and created the basis for the California Celebrities Rights Act of 1986, which makes a person's name or likeness an inheritable right up to 70 years after death.

The multi-million dollar federal lawsuit filed against Beyoncé claims a popular New Orleans YouTuber's distinctive voice and words were used without permission, an act of copyright infringement.

About eight seconds of sampling are featured in Beyoncé's hit single "Formation."

But getting permission from Anthony "Messy Mya" Barré was impossible. Barré was slain in 2010 on his way home from a baby shower.

Angel Barré, his sister, also seeks unpaid royalties and damages from Sony Music and Jay-Z entities, according to the lawsuit filed Feb. 6. The suit claims Beyoncé uses "important and recognizable" portions of two Messy Mya videos, "Booking the Hoes of New Wildings" and "A 27 Piece Huh." The omission of Barré's contribution to the track stands in contrast with the credit given to Beyoncé's other muses throughout the platinum album "Lemonade," which took home the Grammy for Album of the Year. Contributor credits range from Andre 3000 and the Weeknd to Led Zeppelin, Burt Bacharach and Hal David.

Sometimes there might seem to be a disproportionate number of IP lawsuits brought on behalf of dead artists, not because the living artists are trying to exploit them, but because it can simply be much more complicated to secure the rights to work by artists who are no longer with us.

Oftentimes, though, it's not clear who the copyright holder is. An artist's team of attorneys, agents, managers and studio reps might think they made a deal with the right people when they really didn't. The old axiom "it's sometimes better to ask for forgiveness than seek permission," if applied, can work in everyone's favor.

In order to get rights to another artist's work, the person claiming the rights has to show ownership to a valid copyright. Risking a lawsuit would be a way of ferreting out who owns what, and then you deal with them.

Things get messy when the artist dies intestate, no matter whether that person is somewhat obscure, like Barré, or an international megastar, like Prince. And while the estate of Prince, who had no will at the time of his overdose death last year, clearly has an upper hand compared to the estate of Barré, that doesn't mean Barré's sister won't be able to come to some agreement with Beyoncé.

Most instances tie the infringement to the profits, figuring the percentage of infringing work in the whole piece. In this case, the eight seconds make up about 3.9 percent of the three-minute, 26-second track. Then there'd be attorney fees, punitive damages and so on. And the artist's insurance could wind up paying, leaving Beyonce with a windfall of free publicity and permission to use the work.

It's unlikely this was an error. Artists and their management make calculated decisions all the time to sample music without securing the rights -- you just tend not to hear as much about cases when they don't involve mega-stars like Beyonce. It's possible this was a calculated decision looking at the risk involved in the artist using those particular samples to evoke the feel of New Orleans. The only reason this lawsuit saw the light of day was the amount of money being sought and that it involved Beyoncé.

The publicity, though, demonstrates there's big business behind dead celebrities' intellectual property. In death, some entertainers are able to make even more money, because their intellectual property can then be managed by people who are more adept at generating a profit.

Which brings us back to Prince. The fact that Prince died without a will allows whoever is in charge of his estate to make business decisions that are in the best interests of preserving the assets of the estate, and those may be contrary to how Prince conducted his affairs during his lifetime.

Comerica Bank & Trust has been approved by the court to act as a co-executor for the estate, and court proceedings in Minnesota are underway to select the other co-executor from two attorneys favored by different groups of Prince's siblings.

When he was alive Prince, for financial reasons, didn't allow his extensive music catalogue to be streamed to free services such as Spotify or Pandora, but he granted exclusive rights to Jay Z's Tidal music service. That changed last month and now most streaming sites feature Prince's albums. The decisions were made by his estate, and Universal Music Publishing became the administrator of his musical rights. Last November, the estate sued Jay Z's Roc Nation to halt Tidal's exclusive streaming rights.

Interestingly, Prince has a vault of unreleased songs (confirmed by a BBC documentary filmmaker) that could allow his estate to release one new album for the next 100 years. Prior to his death, Prince's album sales averaged 2.7 million. Assuming a cost of $10 per album and an 8 percent royalty (the typical artist's cut), the unreleased music alone could generate $216 million for Prince's estate.

Back in 2012, Michael Jackson's estate received $22.4 million out of $51 million in music sales and streaming. Based on Prince's decision a few years ago to remove his catalogue from all streaming services, except Tidal, the revenue to be generated could easily exceed the revenue being generated by Michael Jackson's catalogue at this time.

Prince's heirs, his professional advisors and business associates are destined to reap the benefits of his efforts for many, many years. In fact, it appears that Prince may generate more revenue after his death than he did during his entire lifetime. And when other artists start sampling those recordings, you can bet that there will be a clear paper trail to the doorstep of Prince's family's accountants.

But for heirs of relative unknowns like Barré, lawsuits might be the only way to assert claims to a deceased artist's intellectual property.