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."
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
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.
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.
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
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.
Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
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.
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.
FRA: STFU GTFO