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."

Comments

Only 27 more years until public domain

[Anonymous Coward]

Right...? Or is Disney going to get another copyright extension passed?

Re:Only 27 more years until public domain

[Alan R Light]

The rule is 70 years after an author's death, and only applies to works created in or after 1976. Works created prior to that were copyrighted for a fixed period from first publication. That period is presently at 95 years.

Regardless, large publishers will doubtless attempt to get the copyright period extended again, so when this speech will be in the public domain - if ever - is unknown.

Of course, if the Constitution had any weight, this speech would be public domain in about 8 years, as (IIRC) the copyright term maxed out at 56 years at the time King gave his speech, and the Constitution gives no authority for copyright law except to promote the useful arts and sciences. Whereas it is difficult to persuade a dead man to give a stirring speech in the past, none of the copyright extensions of previously published works are legal - though, of course, the courts continue to enforce them.

Re:Only 27 more years until public domain

[The Creator]

As I understand it it's now 95 years after the creator's death so we have 52 years left.

The rumors of my death have been greatly exaggerated.

MLK's Family Received 800k from the Memorial

[jarich]

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/

Re:MLK's Family Received 800k from the Memorial

[Baloroth]

Members of celebrities families are greedy free-riding bastards who hang on their relatives coattails. In other news, rodent attacks man. More at 11.

Re:MLK's Family Received 800k from the Memorial

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

The group building the memorial are PISSING on King's grave.
Harry E. Johnson Sr., president of the foundation, made $265,085 in 2008.

They built the "memorial" with uncompensated (read "slave") labour from China.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/08/26/305092/mlk-jr-memorial-statue-completed-using-unpaid-chinese-laborers/

Get this straight. MLK was not a "fee-good, let's all respect each other" civil-rights version of Barney the dinosaur.

He was mobilising and uniting the underprivileged, black and white, in ways that were threatening to the war-mongering coproratist kleptocrats. They didn't kill him 'cos he wanted people to drink from the same fountain.

Now, they are killing him with artificial praise. It's like the moneylenders in the Temple, now selling "Jesus Slept Here" t-shirts.

Re:MLK's Family Received 800k from the Memorial

[shadowofwind]

Members of celebrities families are greedy free-riding bastards who hang on their relatives coattails. In other news, rodent attacks man. More at 11.

Why bring Jimmy Carter into this?

Re:MLK's Family Received 800k from the Memorial

[RandomFactor]

For those that don't catch the reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter_rabbit_incident

Re:MLK's Family Received 800k from the Memorial

[DesScorp]

Members of celebrities families are greedy free-riding bastards who hang on their relatives coattails. In other news, rodent attacks man. More at 11.

King's family is just continuing what King himself did; copyright as much of what he said and wrote as he could, and jealously guard the rights and profits from such work. It doesn't exactly jibe with the image we have of him today, but facts are facts. The man was intent on squeezing out every dime could in this manner.

Re:MLK's Family Received 800k from the Memorial

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

No.

It is a diatribe against the exploitation of the King legacy by those who stand against the type of social justice that was the foundation of his principles and action.

This is patently false.

[Anonymous Coward]

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."

Re:This is patently false.

[slapout]

You now own the King family $120,128.

Re:This is patently false.

[Bill Dimm]

You now own the King family $120,128.

He owns them? I thought we had made more progress than that...

I Had A Dream...

[Jane Q. Public]

Obviously the family is not very big on living up to MLK's dream.

Re:I Had A Dream...

[Jane Q. Public]

I realize his message was mostly about race, but MLK was all about social justice.

There is no justice involved in trying to hold a copyright on a speech that was given in PUBLIC, and broadcast to the public, almost 5 decades ago.

Re:I Had A Dream...

[Jane Q. Public]

"Given the long, sordid history of record companies ripping off African American artists, I hardly think it would have been MLK's dream to allow his own work to be ripped off well."

"Ripped off", how? This was a public speech. If you want to reserve rights to something, then do it in a studio or in front of a paying audience, not in front of thousands of people, in a park, for free.

Re:How is this

[slapout]

The speech contained a message that MLK (presumably) wanted to get out to everyone. Steamboat Willy, not so much.

Not on YouTube

[Jason Levine]

Yes, the speech is not on YouTube. Not here, here, or even here. It's definitely not here.

Re:How is this

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately both parties have fallen prey to the lobbying and money. Democrats are closer to Hollywood and thus more supportive of stronger copyright laws, and Republicans are hardly better.

This is why the only way you might be able to get this on the political agenda (which is still a long way away from getting any legislation passed) is through strong corporate sponsorship for this proposal: Google might be interested, maybe Microsoft et al.

One thing needs to be very clear though: the public, that was deprived of works getting into the public domain at the expected time when they bought the works, were never financially compensated for this loss; this means that rightsholders who see their copyright term shortened also will not need to be financially compensated.

King children care about money, not father

[Nidi62]

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.

Re:King was a great man

[FatLittleMonkey]

The good news is that you are judging them, not by the color of their skin, but by the quality of their character.

The bad news is the quality of their character.