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
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?
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.
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.)"
But he didn't mind plagiarizing others' work when it suited him. As in his dissertation. And part of his "I Have a Dream" speech was taken from Archibald Carey, another black preacher.
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
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.