Slashdot Mirror
A Copyright Nightmare
New submitter forkfail writes "If further proof were needed that copyright law was out of control in the U.S., it can be found in the fact that it costs 10 dollars to view Martin Luther King's famous Dream Speech. You might think you could find it on YouTube or other public venues, given its importance in American history. But no — the rights are firmly locked away until 2038."
This is just part of a larger, really nasty conflict which has been going on within the King family since Coretta King's death. While deaths should ideally bring families together, they probably more often tear them apart (as petty old grudges and sibling rivalries find new expression in the debate over disposition of the estate)--ESPECIALLY when money is involved.
In short Dexter King was sued by his sister Bernice and brother Martin Luther King III over Coretta King's estate after she died. Then he countersued. They later settled, but the copyright on those speeches was one of the most valuable financial assets they fought over in those lawsuits (which they divided up amongst the siblings). In short, the settlement requires that these speeches be treated as financial resources and treated as such.
Money and greed trumped morality as the vultures descended.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
oohhh but yes! You Can! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smEqnnklfYs
".......... in which, after my death my family do not prey on my legacy like bloodthirsty maniacs to make money ........"
apparently, that one just remained a dream ...
Read radical news here
So we all know some of the King family have become money grubbing pricks equaled only by the Tolkien estate, and it doesn't surprise me that they want the speech behind paywalls, but this video of the speech has been on youtube for just short of a year.
So how is it impossible to view the speech without giving the Kings $10?
What better way to encourage him to create new works?
This story is a duplicate, but still valuable.
And as I posted previously, I still want to know why this is different from Steam Boat Willy. Cultures need to be able to decide for themselves what is significant. In order to do that, copyright needs to have a limit. I would suggest no more than 2 generations, or 38 years. Disney and other companies have destroyed what should be a person's innate right to culture. Almost all of us alive today were raised with Mickey Mouse. Mickey Mouse should belong to us all. And so should MLK's Dream.
Hoist Number One and Number Six.
And this is a great reason why everything should return to public domain within a few years. We, the public, provided an automatic monopoly on an idea with the expectation that it would be returned to the public in a few years. A FEW. Not 90. Not 100.
The entire point of copyright is to encourage works to be contributed to the public domain. Kinda nullifies public domain when the duration of copyright is almost half as long as America has existed. Let's turn back the clock on copyright duration. Make it 5-7 years. If that was long enough to exploit one's works in the 1600s, it would certainly be adequate today with the speed of digital distribution.
Create a parody under fair use, with the original audio track, and Martin Luther King flying though space emitting a rainbow.
I have a dream that code compiled in a 32-bit systems will one day live in an operating system where a copyright will not expire by the overflowing of its bits, but by the content of a 64-bit wrapper around any functions involving time_t.
It isn't just his family who has turned this into a nightmare, MLK Jr. himself started the whole issue:
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/featured_documents/mlk_speech/
Furthermore, it appears this wasn't simply a response to someone else trying to publish and profit from his address, it sounds like he claimed copyright a mere month after he gave the speech
From (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alex-pasternack/i-have-a-dream-copyright_b_944784.html):
"Also crucial in the estate’s copyright claims: though King himself claimed copyright of the speech a whole month after he delivered it, his claim was seen as valid because no “tangible” copy of the speech had been distributed before he made his claim. (The ruling was based on previous copyright law, from 1909, not the 1975 law we use today.)"
Not only is this story a dupe, but it was posted by the very same person when TFA originally came out.
The Copyright Nightmare of I Have A Dream
We can't just lay this at the feet of King's family. King himself... in his lifetime... jealously guarded his copyrights.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
Broken window fallacy.
The copyright on that video has not generated any wealth. It has shifted wealth from some people to some other people. To boot, Dr Rev MLK Jr would have made the speech without pecuniary incentive... thus even the spirit of the intention of copyright has no bearing.
The short and simple of it is that there is a cash grab by MLK's heirs based in copyright law.
The long and complex of it is that there is a cash grab by MLK's heirs based in copyright law.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
1 million years is also a 'limited' time.
Read radical news here
I don't know about in the U.S., but here in South Africa, political speeches are specifically exempted from copyright, and are automatically placed in the public domain. I can only assume that there are similar measure in most countries, otherwise, how could politicians quote each other without suing each other into oblivion ;) Oooooh that's a good idea... if we can fool the *IAA into lobying for all political speeches to be copyrighted, then the politicians will sue each other out of office, clearing the way for someone sensible... hey, we can dream.
I heard an interview on NPR with MLK's lawyer about this a year or two ago. He claimed that he not only put a copyright notice on the speech immediately (in those quaint times you had to do that to get a copyright), but when MLK changed the speech on the podium a bit, he made sure the press was released a copyright version of the new modified text.
It actually made quite a bit of sense at the time. Everybody knew even at the time it was going to be a historic speech, and this prevented anybody else from profiting off of reproducing it without giving the author a cut. Considering what he was engaged in doing at the time, it would be tough to come up with a more noble use of existing copyright law.
The problem comes nearly 50 years later, when the author is long dead, has his own frigging monument on the mall in DC, and this speech inarguably belongs in the Public Domain. Yet it isn't, and may never be if trends continue.
Are you saying the photographers subject retains the copyright then? If so, please provide a citation. Everything my searches are finding seem to indicate the copyright belongs to the person who clicked the button that caused the image to be made.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
Everything my searches are finding seem to indicate the copyright belongs to the person who clicked the button that caused the image to be made.
That is correct. The photography release forms that people are familiar with are related to invasion of privacy and defamation, not copyright.
Replying to your original post, the difference is that you are not a creative work; your physical body is a product of nature/genetics/parents/god/whatever, but it is not a creative work of man*. A speech is. It is every bit as creative and unique as prose in a book, and should be just as eligible for copyright.
That said, I do think there should be significant fair use rights for works like this, but I think it is the nature of the subject, not the fact that it was performed in the public that differentiates it.
* You're body could be a canvas for a creative work, but that is another issue.
Hmm, "I have a dream" speech, 1963. 70 years after that would be 2033. So it would still be under Copyright.
If we drop back to the version of Copyright that was in use at the time (28+28), it would be under copyright protection until 2019. So it would still be under copyright.
We'd have to drop back to the Copyright Act of 1831 to find a version (28+14) that would have removed it from copyright before today (in 2005)....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
As far as I know, there's no "logic", they're simply defined by law.
Dilbert RSS feed
I think that Dr. King's speech is, in its essential nature, an instance of a "speech to the public".
Its content was loudly and emphatically proclaimed directly to the ears of a large live audience and also I assume was broadcast far and wide by radio and television at the time, and the speechwriter and deliverer Dr. King, if asked at the time, would certainly have said "Yes. Yes. Spread it far and wide. It is a message that I need to get to as many ears as possible far and wide, as soon as possible, and the message should be ringing in those ears forever."
That was CLEARLY the original intent.
I think it is safe to say therefore that the content of that speech resides in the public domain. If it does not, then nothing does.
Surely, if the "form" of some particular video recording of it is copyrighted, it is only the form of that recording as distinct from other forms, and it is not the content itself, which is in its essential nature a public domain utterance to a nation.
So at the very least someone should be able to re-enact it (from notes and memories, it could be claimed) and record that and make that available.
but if there is a secondary recording not owned by some greedy private interest, that would be better and is not subject to the same copyright as the recording that seems to be at the heart of the legal case. That would be better.
Or perhaps it was broadcast into another country and recorded there. The possibilities for freedom are endless. Or one can always dream.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
As said in other post, MLK himself claimed copyright, and he could do it, because under the 1909 law as long as no physical media (paper) is distributed the speech was not per see public. Strange but that is the fact.