Slashdot Mirror
The Copyright Nightmare of 'I Have a Dream'
CoveredTrax writes "If you weren't alive to witness Martin Luther King's 'I Have a Dream' speech on the Washington Mall 48 years ago this week, you might try to switch on the old YouTube and dial it up. But you won't find it there or anywhere else; rights to its usage remain with King and his family. Typically, a speech broadcast to a large audience on radio and television (and considered instrumental in historic political changes and ranked as the most important speech in 20th century American history) would seem to be a prime candidate for the public domain. But the copyright dilemma began in December 1963, when King sued Mister Maestro, Inc., and Twentieth Century Fox Records Company to stop the unauthorized sale of records of the 17-minute oration."
Right...? Or is Disney going to get another copyright extension passed?
In related news, the group building the memorial had to ~pay~ MLK's family 800,000 dollars for the rights to his image and words. http://goodnightsnack.com/2011/08/26/martin-luther-king-jr-family-charges-800k-to-use-his-words-on-commemorative-dc-statue-greed/
Agile Artisans
How is this different from Steam Boat Willy? Both are important to culture, but both are unavailable in the public domain. Intellectual property laws in this country have become obscene. It is time to put an end to century laws and go back to a sensible two generation intellectual property right ownership (38 years).
Hoist Number One and Number Six.
...there's no references to the speech on the new memorial in Washington, DC.
My mom always said, "Jim, you're 1 in a million." Given the current population, there are 7000 of me. God help us all!
I have listened to this speech at work on the internet every year on the anniversary of MLK's death. The speech text and audio have never been hard to find. Here is an example site:
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlkihaveadream.htm
I believe this counts as "anywhere else."
Obviously the family is not very big on living up to MLK's dream.
MLK: I have a dream.
FOX: We have a congress. Your move.
Funny may not give karma, but +5 Informative never made anyone snort coffee out their nose.
How dare his family try to make money off of this man? They should be ashamed of themselves. If there's any speech that should be public domain, it's this one. And don't even get me started on their payments from the National Mall memorial. We're trying to honor this man for his accomplishments. These family members disgusts me. They should stop the money grabbing and try to live up to the spirit and legacy of their relative, not make money off of him.
They threatened to sue Obama / MLK t-shirt vendors with the "Yes We Can" text on it in 2008.
The family always seems to sue each other over the past few decades.
Also, at the request of the King family, his FBI file is sealed until 2027.. what does a Reverend have to hide?
There should be a right to prevent others from profiting by copying and distributing or packaging your works
without an agreement with you,
but NOT a right to prevent the material being freely copyable where no money is being exchanged and no
advertising is being glommed on.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
Yes, the speech is not on YouTube. Not here, here, or even here. It's definitely not here.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Typically, a speech broadcast to a large audience on radio and television (and considered instrumental in historic political changes and ranked as the most important speech in 20th century American history) would seem to be a prime candidate for the public domain.
I don't know how in the world you could think this. It's a ridiculous notion. It's pretty obvious that the speech is copyrighted, and that the owners of the copyright have the right to restrict its distribution. Anyone wishing to write about the speech can use existing fair-use laws to refer to it, but just simply posting a copy on a web site is obviously an infringement.
Perhaps the copyright owners want to make sure that it isn't abused. There are a lot of people out there who would love to twist Dr. King's words to their own advantage.
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
Shame that 90% of his family are money grubbing whores.
I have my own dream that someday we will end this copyright foolishness. That people will realize that ideals once expressed become part of our collective humanity, and not something to be enslaved forever to the false god of capitalistic profits. I see a day when all children have the chance to make beautiful music and that music not be shacked by men who make no art. Then if we the people enjoy that music, then those children can earn a comfortable living for themselves from their endeavors.
Yes, I have seen the promised land and it is Creative Commons!
Thank God almighty we are free at least from US style Copyright!!!
The thing is, your company probably wasn't selling it as a standalone item, like the companies mentioned in TFS.
Those lawsuits were basically making a profit off of someone elses work, without compensating that person. Your company may be using as an aid to making their profit, but I'm sure they put a whole lot more effort into it, and the speech isn't the centerpiece or primary portion of the class.
Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
MLK was alive for the suit against Mister Maestro and Twentieth Century Fox.
The copyright notice, hastily scribbled onto the text of the speech by Mr. King's attorney as copies were being mimeographed in the press tent the day of the speech is one of the financial pillars that gave MLK's organization the funding to keep moving forward.
To be clear, the speech had been pressed onto records and was being sold over over the country as a single. The MLK foundation stepped in, enforced the copyright, and claimed a cut to continue Mr. King's work.
Martin Luther King, Jr. vs Mister Maestro, Inc., and 20th Century-Fox Record Corporation USDC, S.D.N.Y. (12-13-1963) 224 F.Supp.101, 140 USPQ 366. Since I'm guessing you do not actually know -- MLK died on April 4, 1968, about 5 years after you think he was "rolling over in his grave."
-GiH
Yeah. Except the description in the TFS anyway, what started it all, wasn't draconian copyright law. It was a group trying to make a profit off of someone elses work without compensating them.
Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
MLK was alive for the suit against Mister Maestro and Twentieth Century Fox. The copyright notice, hastily scribbled onto the text of the speech by Mr. King's attorney as copies were being mimeographed in the press tent the day of the speech is one of the financial pillars that gave MLK's organization the funding to keep moving forward. To be clear, the speech had been pressed onto records and was being sold over over the country as a single. The MLK foundation stepped in, enforced the copyright, and claimed a cut to continue Mr. King's work. Martin Luther King, Jr. vs Mister Maestro, Inc., and 20th Century-Fox Record Corporation USDC, S.D.N.Y. (12-13-1963) 224 F.Supp.101, 140 USPQ 366. Since I'm guessing you do not actually know -- MLK died on April 4, 1968, about 5 years after you think he was "rolling over in his grave." -GiH
Ever since their mother's death, MLK's children have done nothing but fight over the rights in regards to their father, and the profits to be gained by selling them. For instance, in regards to a proposed MLK movie: "Bernice King and her eldest brother, Martin III, say they are "taking action" against their estranged sibling, Dexter, who is chief executive of the King estate, because he apparently decided to negotiate the entire film deal with Spielberg and Dreamworks without attempting to seek their permission." (http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/the-king-family-fighting-over-the-dream-1688644.html). And notice how Dexter is the chief executive of the estate. That means he is entirely within his rights to negotiate a movie deal on behalf of the estate. Book deals and memoirs regarding MLK and Coretta King, worth millions of dollars, have been lost due to infighting and court battles (http://www.thegrio.com/top-stories/atlanta-ap----two-children.php)(http://cards6.wordpress.com/2008/11/02/in-fighting-between-king-family-tarnishes-king-legacy/).
It's really very sad. MLK certainly did a great thing for this country, centered around the march and his "I Have A Dream" speech. However, it seems his children have a dream as well: to make as much money off their father's legacy. I would be willing to bet that MLK, were he still alive, would be ashamed of how is children are acting. They are disrespecting their father and their legacy.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Anybody from Atlanta should be able to attest that Dr. King's family is a bunch of degenerates who ride on his accomplishments for their own monetary / political / social gain. Just check out the frequent lawsuits and scandals involving family members and the King Center.
Slashdot: come for the pedantry, stay for the condescension.
FWIW, I once listened to the speech while reading along to the text of the speech as found in a book of famous speeches I had.
I learned a lesson that day which is that publishers will publish the "official" text which may differ significantly from that which was actually delivered. I was pretty annoyed because I paid good money for the book and wanted to read along to the speech.
It is highly disputed that MLK plagiarised the I Had A Dream speech. http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/m/mlk.htm I think it should be settled once and for all.
Either revoke it or respect it. I don't care which. But if King is to be a national hero, I don't think it's right that there should be profit in it for anyone -- not even his family.
Typically, a speech broadcast to a large audience on radio and television (and considered instrumental in historic political changes and ranked as the most important speech in 20th century American history) would seem to be a prime candidate for the public domain.
Why should a speech be a part of public domain? If it is broadcast to a large audience? So if I want to retain copyright I should make sure I only broadcast to small audiences? Is it the radio or television that is important here? Or is the they "considered instrumental" part? It sounds to me like any (and all of these) are very good reasons to maintain and protect the copyright on said work. Copyright is set up for the creator (or the person who hired the creator) can benefit from their creation for a number of years (and sure, sometimes this means the creator's offspring profit, good for them) Just because a creation becomes popular, or well known, or historically instrumental, doesn't mean the author should no longer profit. I find it interesting that some people consider celebrities children to be greedy free-riding bastards, and yet that same person wants the said item for... free.
I have a copyright nightmare ...
Did you identify a change in the message beyond the mere words, or was it just a sloppy transcription? Perhaps they published a version of the speech he wrote down beforehand, which would of course not be identical to something spoken over 17 minutes by anyone who knows well enough to not stare at the paper for the duration of the delivery.
then it can be changed to "I have a DRM".
of a world free of stupid copyright and stupid patents.
of a world with considerably less greed.
of a world with people thinking of what is best for us and not what is best for me.
of a world like in a dream and not in a nightmare.
But as long as I don't migrate to a different planet I have to stop dreaming, because it is a total waste of time.
If copyright term extensions in excess of the Berne minimum were rolled back, Microsoft could make more stock footage and stock music available to users of Windows Movie Maker.
It is indeed a moral and cultural disgrace that there are those who would try to censor the King's words like this.
I am familiar with this site - http://martinlutherking.org/ that the King family and others have been trying to shut down for years - unsuccessfully thankfully. It is a very good resource for a educational MLK material and millions of schoolchildren access it every year.
Hosted by Stormfront
Man-children maybe.
My -1 Troll is actually a +1 funny. And my -1 flame is actually a +1 insightfull.
afterward your heirs get to profit from your work for a set period of time.
How is it "a set period of time" if Congress can extend it on a whim (Eldred v. Ashcroft)?
What we need is an MLK-like figure making an impassioned and influential speech promoting the abolition of patent and copyright laws.
Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
"Those are holy words, only a chief may speak them."
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
MLK: I have a dream.
FOX: We have a congress. Your move.
Are you blaming Congress for the copyright that King himself took out? And that his family still holds?
King didn't have to copyright his speeches. But he did. And he did it to make money. If you think there's fault in this, then put it squarely where it belongs: King himself, and later, his family.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
Phrases like "I have a Dream" and "I have seen the promised land" were said by other people long before 1963
That is because he changed the Speech while speaking. The "Official Text" is the written speech, the Orration is different. This is an "Intended Feature". Deal with it.
It may be an impossible dream.
But it is a dream we all must strive to make true.
That politicians will see reason, and reform patent and copyright
law to the benefit of the people, rather than the conglomerates
trying to control this essential information and stifle innovation.
Apparently, Mr. King had a dream, but it wasn't Richard Stallman's...
In 1952 Rev. Archibald Carey gave a speech at the Republican National Convention. Here is part of that “not so well known” speech by Rev. Archibald Carey, Jr. at the Republican Convention in 1952: “We, Negro Americans, sing with all loyal Americans: My country ’tis of thee, Sweet land of liberty, Of thee I sing. Land where my fathers died, Land of the Pilgrims’ pride From every mountainside Let freedom ring! That’s exactly what we mean – from every mountain side, let freedom ring. Not only from the Green Mountains and White Mountains of Vermont and New Hampshire; not only from the Catskills of New York; but from the Ozarks in Arkansas, from the Stone Mountain in Georgia, from the Blue Ridge Mountains of Virginia – let it ring not only for the minorities of the United States, but for the disinherited of all the earth — may the Republican Party, under God, from every mountainside, LET FREEDOM RING!” And, here are the famous words from the “I Have a Dream” speech by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. on August 28, 1963: This will be the day when all of God’s children will be able to sing with a new meaning, “My country, ’tis of thee, Sweet land of liberty, Of thee I sing. Land where my fathers died, Land of the pilgrim’s pride, From every mountainside, Let freedom ring.” And if America is to be a great nation this must become true. So let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire. Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York. Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania! Let freedom ring from the snowcapped Rockies of Colorado! Let freedom ring from the curvaceous slopes of California! But not only that; let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia! Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee! Let freedom ring from every hill and molehill of Mississippi. From every mountainside, let freedom ring. And when this happens, when we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God’s children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, “Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!”
The revolution will not be broadcasted.......
Whatever. It SO WILL. There's a lot of PROFIT in that!
Oh, wait.. I need to follow the rules. Someone caught me earlier today, so here we go:
Phase 1: Revolution!
Phase 2: ???
Phase 3: PROFIT!!!
Wait, profit comes before 2.... or before 1? Hell I dunno. :>
Naw, I'm not blaming congress for King's copyright. I'm blaming corporations for screwing with the copyright system. That speech should be in the public domain now; it's only not because certain powerful people wanted to make money and had the laws modified to include insane terms. This speech is just collateral damage.
Funny may not give karma, but +5 Informative never made anyone snort coffee out their nose.
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."
AND THEY ARE!
The entry/non-entry of Dr. King's speech into the public domain is a famous case in copyright circles - and in fact, was one reason the copyright laws were changed. It's a fascinating story.
First you need to realize that prior to 1976, unless you put a copyright mark on a document and properly registed it, it was presumed to be in the public domain as soon as it was made public. This led to a number of problems and disputes, and today is widely viewed as being overly punative to people who simply forget to put the mark on a document before releasing it. Today's copyright laws eliminate the "all or nothing" nature of the 1909 Act, and sensibly declare that copyright rests with the author, regardless of whether they properly marked it.
Second, there's an interesting history behind the I Have a Dream speech. While the factual accounts of exactly what happened differ, Dr. King and his associates apparently distributed advance copies of the speech without the copyright mark on them to a group of journalists. Recognizing that this was a serious error, others within Dr. King's circle reportedly re-collected each of the advance copies, and then redistributed them with the copyright mark hand written on the document. So there was a factual question as to whether the textual copy of the speech was put into the public domain or not registered with the copyright office correctly.
There was less dispute over the video and audio. As others have noted, Dr. King improvised/departed from the prepared text a number of times. So there was an argument that, even if Dr. King had lost the copyright on the original text (which is itself debatable), he maintained the copyright on the "performance" of the speach, and was thus entitled to a separate copyright (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estate_of_Martin_Luther_King,_Jr.,_Inc._v._CBS,_Inc.).
I also believe that the speech is freely licensed to anyone engaging in educational activities - so it's not quite as eggregious on the part of the family as many have suggested.
It'd be funny to watch the King's family faces when he was dropped from history books for copyright issues with his speech.
Now I know why the evangelists waited 70 years before writing it down.
Martin luther king's family that is. one has to be disgusting pieces of shit, to turn a vision into a profit machine. taints the man's legacy.
Read radical news here
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times[emphasis mine] to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
--Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution
Did you mount a military-grade, variable-focus MASER on an unlicensed artificial intelligence?
If it was a public performance (which a presentation at a company gathering is a public performance at least with the definition of the copyright laws of the United States), it more than likely was a copyright violation.
No worry, many people violate copyright laws on a frequent basis, usually due to ignorance but often because it doesn't seem logical either. On that I'd have to agree as well.
Your rationalizations here might apply to "educational fair use", but there are some huge restrictions to that. If the "instructor" obtained and displayed the content without permission or knowledge of the company officers on the premises and then used the speech to illustrate principles in the curriculum being presented, the case for fair use is much easier to make. If the CEO or plant manager suggested that the instructor play the speech, it would be a copyright violation. Educational fair use is a very tricky area and usually most people get it wrong. Most especially teachers and copyright holders alike.
Fair use is a defense where the ability to profit from the act of copyright violation is not necessarily the only consideration to be made. As to if profits were made from the class or that it was a product of the company or not is irrelevant.
Oh look! A man child thinking he's being clever!
You really think you can justify propaganda aimed towards children?
My -1 Troll is actually a +1 funny. And my -1 flame is actually a +1 insightfull.
The family isn't being greedy and evil. Howvere, copyright wasn't designed so a family memebr can suck at the teet of anothers work for the rest of their life. It was designed to support the creator and protect him while he/she's alive from others stealing it. It needs to get back to that. Or it needs to go away completely. Anything else is BS. Mister Maestro, Inc., and Twentieth Century Fox Records were asses trying to steal it. MLK used the law as it was correctly designed. Its his family and the current evils that have fubared it. The family for deciding to rest on his laurels and not their own. and we all know about the evils.
All that inconvenient history could put to far better use broken down and sold as aquarium ballast.
``Tension, apprehension & dissension have begun!'' - Duffy Wyg&, in Alfred Bester's _The Demolished Man_
My side of the story? whats that? OH! Let me guess, that whole CULTURAL MARXISM thing my side got going on!
Yeah, duping the masses with an esoteric sociology branch sure was a stroke of genius.
My -1 Troll is actually a +1 funny. And my -1 flame is actually a +1 insightfull.
I mentioned that.
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2403252&cid=37246424
The structure is very different from that speech.
My -1 Troll is actually a +1 funny. And my -1 flame is actually a +1 insightfull.
Typically, a speech broadcast to a large audience on radio and television (and considered instrumental in historic political changes and ranked as the most important speech in 20th century American history) would seem to be a prime candidate for the public domain.
Oh, OK. So if I make a song that contains scathing but accurate political commentary, and I perform it in front of a large audience, it is now in the public domain, and others can profit from its reproduction. What country do you live in, again?
This is perhaps one of the very few uses of copyright law that I actually agree with. MLK's words don't belong in burger commercials, and his ideals are already regularly trampled on by people looking to sell him as a cuddly pro-establishment public speaker that brought us a couple of changes to the wording in the law books without ever aspiring for more, or trying to organize a greater movement to benefit the nation's impoverished. Idolizing him in this way is at least as disingenuous as trying to sell Ronald Reagan as a great, popular leader that brought prosperity to all Americans. In about 15 years I suppose we'll be hearing hacked-together sound bytes from Mumia Abu Jamal on death row praising the American military industry for bringing true security to his family.
As far as not being able to find the videos, they are on youtube, they're just not necessarily legally there, meaning that you can watch them but Google can't CG a clown suit on him and use the animated gif as a mascot until people never want to see him or hear him again. If the videos do come down, they'll go back up in spite of the law because people want other people to watch it. It's important to us because we care about the man and what he stood for, and I'm sure his family is happy about that. We're going to share it as part of our culture whether it's technically legal or not, and I'm going to assume with reason and good faith that his family wants people to know what he really fought for, and that their disagreement rests more on who is profiting from crushing what remains of his legacy. There is definitely a lot to disagree with in the way he is most often presented.
This post is timely, but omits the information that makes it timely.
The King Center just announced a few days ago that it plans on launching a website with comprehensive digital access to the written and audio-visual archival materials it controls.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/jpmorgan-chase-co-and-the-king-center-announce-the-king-center-imaging-project-an-unprecedented-joint-digitization-initiative-2011-08-25?reflink=MW_news_stmp
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0F4iXEzOqY
I show this to my students every year. It's a remarkable thing that couldn't have been created even ten years ago. Dr. King's powerful voice is the perfect vehicle for the Autotune treatment.
King didn't have to copyright his speeches. But he did.
Except that Copyright is automatic.
Sort of hard to Streisand anything that every person on the entire planet has ALREADY HEARD OF. (And, most likely, watched at least part of.)
Oh, I'd heard of the "I Have a Dream" speech all right, but I wouldn't have known his relatives were greedy money-grubbing leeches, wouldn't have known that he basically plagiarized large portions of his thesis, and wouldn't have known that someone else had delivered a speech very much like his "I Have a Dream" speech before he had. I also probably wouldn't have heard about this.
Actually, I was surprised to find out that crass use with no socially redeeming features, something which I considered was still parody, was often not considered such by the US judicial system. Check out:
(references cribbed from The Ethical Visions of Copyright Law (PDF), by James Grimmelmann --- see page 2017 / 13).