Martin Luther King Jr's Children In Court Over MLK IP

cervesaebraciator writes "Slashdot has reported before about the copyright nightmare of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s 'I Have a Dream' Speech. Now, questions of intellectual property and the legacy of Dr. King have caused his children to go to court. The estate, run by King's sons, claims the rights to the intellectual property and memorabilia of Dr. King as assets. Accordingly, it has filed suit against the non-profit Martin Luther King Jr. Center for Nonviolent Change, run by King's daughter, for plans to continue using King memorabilia once a royalty-free licensing agreement expires, (which the estate says will be in September). As is the case with increasing frequency, one is left to wonder about the implications intellectual property claims have for free speech when they can be applied to so public a figure as Dr. King."

Comments

End of a Dream

[Anonymous Coward]

MLK's legacy capitalizing on MLK's legacy.

Go for it kids!

Re:End of a Dream

[msauve]

"Does anyone else ever notice the color of Mickey?"

Did you ever notice that Mickey has a peer, Goofy, who's a dog. He also has what's obviously a slave dog - Pluto.

Re:End of a Dream

[meerling]

As far as I'm concerned (ianal), the "I have a dream" speech was a historical, public, and defining of an important part of our society. It can't be copyrighted. Any lowlife trying to capitalize on that should be thrown in jail.

Re:End of a Dream

[AlphaWolf_HK]

MLK's legacy has largely been decimated by those who claim to support him the most.

One of his most famous sayings was that he had a dream that his four children would not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

People like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, who are now seen as civil rights leaders, basically threw that out completely.and shit on it at almost every turn. Groups like the NAACP are pushing for criminal prosecution of, for example, the rodeo clown who made fun of Obama, even though people in much bigger areas of the limelight have done much worse things to make fun of other presidents. George Zimmerman would never have seen prosecution if he was black or Trayvon was white; guilty or not the evidence just wasn't there which is why they originally chose not to prosecute, and only did so after pressure from racial groups, which goes to show that in America, now the only requirement for prosecution is that public opinion be against you regardless of whether or not you can be proven guilty.

And how are programs like affirmative action following in that spirit? They tell you that, for example, if you have slanted eyes then you immediately deserve lower preference than anybody, but if you have black skin then you automatically get to be first in line.

What a joke the civil rights movement has become.

Re:End of a Dream

[Anonymous Coward]

That the is whole idea behind the royalty-free organization that is going to court. They still own it. The summary sounds like a conflict of interest between siblings. The one that runs the organization to promote Reverend King's ideals, and the other siblings that want to cash in on the property. Am I understanding this correctly?

Re:End of a Dream

[TWiTfan]

he had a dream that his four children would not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

In that case, they've been judged a bunch of selfish, greedy pricks.

Re:End of a Dream

[Synerg1y]

Prison and jail ethnic population statistics answer that question unceremoniously. You have a huge advantage and the benefit of the doubt in the legal system just by being white. I'll also mention for like billionth time: ZIMMERMAN ISNT OR WILL BE WHITE... fuck cnn.

Re:End of a Dream

[TWiTfan]

he was the one doing the assaulting

The jury disagreed. And much of the evidence did as well.

Re:End of a Dream

[mcmonkey]

"Does anyone else ever notice the color of Mickey?"

Did you ever notice that Mickey has a peer, Goofy, who's a dog. He also has what's obviously a slave dog - Pluto.

Obviously Pluto is the field dog. Goofy is the house dog.

Re:End of a Dream

[Arker]

You can shoot someone that jumps out of the shadows and starts beating your head in. That's actually legal virtually everywhere, including all over Europe. In most of Europe, it's very difficult for an individual citizen to legally carry the weapon to begin with, of course, but the right to self defense is hardly a US invention.

Re:End of a Dream

[blueg3]

1. He followed Trayvon -- he was the one doing the assaulting.

Following someone isn't assault. It's also not evidence that, in an ensuing confrontation, the follower was necessarily the instigator of violence. You can follow someone and then they assault you.

Re:End of a Dream

[Nerdfest]

The way to eliminate racism is not by perpetuating it.

Re:End of a Dream

[Petron]

George Zimmerman would never have seen prosecution if he was black or Trayvon was white; guilty or not the evidence just wasn't there.

What kind of crack are you smoking? 1. He followed Trayvon -- he was the one doing the assaulting....

Following ! = assaulting.

He was on the phone with 911 when he was asked where the suspicious person (person pacing in front of a house). George got out to look. The 911 operator (not a cop) told him he didn't have to look for him, and George said "Ok" and stopped looking. He went across the residential block to get an address, turned back and started to go back to his truck. At that point 911 closed the call.

Trayvon was on the phone too, to his friend Dee-Dee. She stated he made it all the way back to the back yard of the house he was staying at. He then decided to *GO BACK* and confront George, Dee-Dee lost contact when she said she heard a fight break out. We have a timestamp when the call ended.

From when George told the 911 operator he lost sight of Trayvon, to the point when the fight broke out, was 4 minutes. The house Trayvon was staying at was less than 100 yards away. Four minutes was more than enough time to get back home. It is enough time to head home, then decide to head back... And based on Trayvon's social media, he was one to pick a fight with people. This is based on evidence.

We also know that Trayvon's mother sent Trayvon to live with his father because she couldn't control him.

We also know that George didn't land a single punch, or attack until he was able to get his gun out. We also know Trayvon did hit George many times. I don't think you can assault somebody's fist with your face....

Everything points to Trayvon was upset that some guy was watching him and wanted to teach that guy a lesson... And he picked a fight with a person who could defend himself.

Re:End of a Dream

[Anonymous Coward]

He didn't shoot from his car. Are you on drugs or something?

Re:End of a Dream

[AlphaWolf_HK]

In the 1700's and 1800's we had a concept called fighting words. If somebody used "fighting words" (words that provoked a fight) then that person was responsible for whatever happened afterwards.

That concept sort of fell apart when it became questionable what constituted fighting words, and what constituted provocation. So, the new standard became whoever made the first physical assault was then responsible. Both the physical evidence and witness testimony showed that it was indeed Trayvon who not only initiated physical contact, but also caused physical injuries and was seen straddling Zimmerman. That is why Zimmerman was found not guilty, and it is also why they chose not to prosecute him in the beginning. It was only after public pressure, and public pressure alone, not evidence or anything else, which is why this went to trial. Also contrary to popular opinion, "stand your ground" was never used as a defense in this case.

The detectives themselves who investigated the case didn't even want to prosecute it, by the way, because they believed Zimmerman to be innocent. One of the things that convince me personally that Zimmerman is telling the truth is that one of the detectives told Zimmerman that they had the incident on camera, to which Zimmerman replied "thank god" without even thinking about it.

Besides, if we stuck to "being followed" as a justification for turning around and pummeling somebody's head against concrete, I'd sure hate to be a mall cop.

Re:End of a Dream

[Arker]

There was no car involved, the younger man was shot while on top of the older man, apparently attempting to release his brains from his skull with the assistance of the concrete below. Read the trial transcripts.

Re:End of a Dream

[Petron]

The drug concoction was a drug called "Lean", "Purple Lean", "Sizzurp", or "Purple Drank". Trayvon's recipe called for Arizona Ice Tea brand Watermelon Fruit-punch cocktail, Cough Syrup (preferably with codeine) and skittles. It's one of the reasons why cough syrup is sold behind the counter.

Feel free to look up "Trayvon Lean facebook" and see posts by Trayvon on making the stuff... Also look up the LA times article "Lil Wayne hospitalized; sizzurp's powerful high, deadly side effects"

Re:End of a Dream

[Penguinisto]

Considering that King was reviled by a large hunk of America, and still is (see "Robert E. Lee Day)

Great. Now I have an image of Dr. King astride a warhorse, leading his sword at full gallop, and charging Confederate positions alongside Sherman in Atlanta.

What the hell, dude?

Let's get a couple of things straight here...

Point The First: Historical celebrations of events long passed does not automatically denote an adherence to the babblings of some backwoods sheet-donning inbred.

Point The Second: while racism is certainly not dead yet, I can tell you for damned certain that it's currently suffering from a fatal case of terminal neglect. Clue: *ACTUAL* racism has faded so badly that certain ideologues have to invent new meanings of the word (e.g. "I disagree with Obama" == "racist" in some quarters), just to keep the outrage flowing and (more importantly) the campaign coffers full.

Point The Third: Jesse Jackson and his ilk have been waving Dr. King's bloody shirt for decades now, shaking down individuals and corporations alike for agreement, compliance, and (again, more importantly) money. They have contributed absolutely nothing towards the elimination of racial hatred, and I daresay they have incited more than a little.

Re:End of a Dream

[Agent0013]

How about Trayvon's own facebook posting saying he uses the stuff.

Trayvon, in fact, had become a devotee of the druggy concoction known as “Lean,” also known in southern hip-hop culture as “Sizzurp” and “Purple Drank.” Lean consists of three basic ingredients — codeine, a soft drink, and candy. If his Facebook postings are to be believed, Trayvon had been using Lean since at least June 2011.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3044402/posts

Re:End of a Dream

[Entropius]

I don't know about the law in your state (I don't know what your state is), but per the one I know the best (Arizona), you can't claim self-defense in a fight you started unless you express a desire to withdraw and the other party doesn't let you. However, following someone to see if they're up to no good doesn't count as "provocation", I would imagine.

As far as 2), the law allows you to use deadly force to defend yourself against "serious physical injury". There's no requirement of weapons. A barfight between equally-matched participants doesn't count, but (say) a very strong attacker against a much weaker defender does. Getting your head pounded into the pavement certainly does, as Zimmerman claims.

Re:End of a Dream

[jimbolauski]

If they could prove that you went into a bar and provoked a fight then waited outside for him, you would defiantly be convicted of manslaughter and possibly murder, especially since you posted this. The prosecutor could not prove Zimmerman started the fight or was the aggressor just that he was legally following someone. The evidence shows that Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman raining blows down upon his head when Zimmerman shot him. You can't PROVE Zimmerman did anything wrong all you can do is speculate. You can't speculate beyond a reasonable doubt.

For a some what similar case with the races reversed you cold look at John White, he shot and killed a white teenager in the street outside his home. White's son had sent a message threatening rape to the victims sister and they went to confront him. White then pointed a gun in the teen's face and when the teen flinched, white took it as a sign of aggression and shot him dead. The teen never touched White which is the glaring difference between the two cases, white was charged and convicted with illegal weapons possession and manslaughter which he received 20 months to 4 years as a sentence. White's sentence was commuted to 5 months after the claims of racism. That is less then Plexico Burris got for shooting himself in the leg in the same state of New York.

Re:End of a Dream

[hairyfeet]

Sorry but the law says I'm allowed to follow anybody I want down the street, that isn't a crime, you also have somebody in a black hoodie in 84 degree weather at night in a neighborhood that has been robbed repeatedly, that gave Zimmerman every right to wonder if it was another robbery. You have the GF saying on the stand that Martin called Zimmerman a cracker and she encouraged Martin to jump him, you had multiple witnesses that said Martin was pounding Zimmerman's head into the pavement and during the entire fight Zimmerman was totally defensive, never once getting the upper hand, finally you have Martin's own words on FB talking about how he was gonna score a gat, "be gangsta" and laughing about how much fun he had bashing a bus driver's head in for looking at him wrong.

Given THAT much evidence I don't see how anybody can argue anything but the ONLY reason Zimmerman was prosecuted was because of black activists playing the victim card, right down to constantly showing and selling photoshopped t-shirts of Martin at 11 years old in a hoodie when in reality he was 6 foot 2, had multiple tats, and could bench press over 200 pounds. i'm sorry but I don't care if the guy was green I would have likewise followed anybody acting like that and you can be damned sure I'd defend myself if they jumped me.

As for MLK I have NO doubt that if he were to comeback tomorrow he would treat the so called "black leaders" as Jesus did the moneylenders at the temple and would be disgusted with the rise of the welfare state, black fathers not stepping up and raising their kids, the idolizing of thugs and gangbangers and demonizing of education, and the blaming all problems of white people. The goal of MLK was to give everyone a chance to be the best they could be regardless of the color of their skin, not to turn being black into a permanent handicap.

Kinda sad when you can take a black guy straight off the boat from Africa and he has something like 40 TIMES more likelihood of becoming middle class in a single generation than a black man born here. To me that says all that needs to be said, its not the color of their skin, its the demonizing of education and the victim mentality that is holding back black folks in America now.

Re:End of a Dream

[Microlith]

Hahahah, someone citing a post on freerepublic. Congratulations, you just obliterated any and all credibility you may have ever had.

Re:End of a Dream

[Anonymous Coward]

But without the benefit of copyright, Dr. King will have no motive to continue giving exemplary speeches in the future.

Re:End of a Dream

[Seumas]

Yeah, The Color of Mickey was one of my favorite pool hustling movies.

Re:End of a Dream

[K. S. Kyosuke]

As far as I'm concerned (ianal), the "I have a dream" speech was a historical, public, and defining of an important part of our society. It can't be copyrighted. Any lowlife trying to capitalize on that should be thrown in jail.

And in the worst case, perhaps speeches are fungible. :-)

Re:End of a Dream

[interkin3tic]

MLK's legacy has largely been decimated by those who claim to support him the most.

Funny, I didn't think the Supreme Court claimed to be one of MLKs supporters when they ruled on the Voting Rights Act.

People like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, who are now seen as civil rights leaders, basically threw that out completely.and shit on it at almost every turn. Groups like the NAACP are pushing for criminal prosecution of, for example, the rodeo clown who made fun of Obama, even though people in much bigger areas of the limelight have done much worse things to make fun of other presidents. George Zimmerman would never have seen prosecution if he was black or Trayvon was white; guilty or not the evidence just wasn't there which is why they originally chose not to prosecute, and only did so after pressure from racial groups, which goes to show that in America, now the only requirement for prosecution is that public opinion be against you regardless of whether or not you can be proven guilty.

And that has what to do with MLK and civil rights? Is the connection that they are all black people? Are you suggesting that black people have been acting so badly in the media that somehow they have lost civil rights? I'm honestly confused. It's not simply "I can't stand people who claim to represent civil rights these days," is it? Because I really can't stand most activists of any stripe, from civil rights to low taxes to free software to critical mass bikers.

It seems to take a particularly irritating personality to care about something so much that you want to change society. So lets not act as if civil rights activists today are particularly annoying.

And how are programs like affirmative action following in that spirit? They tell you that, for example, if you have slanted eyes then you immediately deserve lower preference than anybody, but if you have black skin then you automatically get to be first in line.

Affirmative action is ideally correcting a recurring problem in society, not simply giving a boost to all minorities. So I think the basis for people saying Asians shouldn't be covered by affirmative action would say "They're doing fine as is." For black people, on the other hand, the argument would be there's a cycle of not having opportunities from generation to generation.

I'm not claiming to know anything about whether or not black people are disadvantaged while asians have enough advantages, I'm explicitly steering clear of that, I'm just pointing out the argument is more complex than "your skin is not white so you should get first choice of jobs and education," and consequently, it's not as hypocritical as you're making it out to be.

Re:End of a Dream

[Nerdfest]

I can say the same thing using a lot more words if you like. It doesn't change anything.

Re:End of a Dream

[hairyfeet]

Uhhhh...not only was he in his own back yard when he CHOSE to go back and assault Zimmerman (backed up by the GF on the stand who was egging him on) but he had a CELL PHONE and if he in ANY way, shape, or form felt threatened he could have just as easily dialed 911. The reason why he did not is obvious by reading his FB postings as he LIKED to give people "beat downs" as he called them and in fact posted a long rant on how much he enjoyed beating down a bus driver, with great detail on how good it made him feel BTW.

Re:End of a Dream

[cayenne8]

No, drug use does not indicate him being a bad person. His attacking someone out on the street indicates he was a bad person. His portrayed persona of being a gangsta wannabe with pictures of him holding guns gives some indication that he wanted to be a bad person. His racial slurs indicates he has little respect for other tells me he was a bad person. I don't miss him and think it is good he was shot. More like him should get what they have coming.

And funny...you don't see Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson raising a ruckus over the recent killing of a white man from Australia, by some black kids...shooting him in the back with no interaction at all. One of the black kids, has posts out that are extremely racist.

But then again..that won't put money in Al or Jesse's pocket.

The civil rights "movement" has become the civil rights "industry" where there is money to be made by black "leaders" race baiting blacks against whites.

Hell, if MLK's dream came true...they'd be out of a fucking job.

Re:End of a Dream

[AlphaWolf_HK]

He followed and provoked someone then killed him.

You skipped a few steps there.

- Zimmerman followed Trayvon, then turned around and went back to his truck. 911 tapes and witness testimony confirmed this (prosecution witness no less.)
- He got out of his truck to check the address so that he could tell the police and so they could find him. Again, confirmed by 911 tapes.
- Trayvon, who was 3 minutes away from being home, decides to turn around and go after "that cracker" (referring to Zimmerman) instead of continuing home.
- While Zimmerman is checking the address, Trayvon assaults Zimmerman, tells him he's going to die tonight. A witness sees Trayvon straddling Zimmerman on the ground and assaulting him. Zimmerman has wounds on both the front and back of his head, including a broken nose and lacerations. Trayvon has no notable injuries.

You can clearly see, which prosecution witnesses even testified to, that Zimmerman not only stopped following him, but Trayvon, who could have returned home, instead came after Zimmerman and then assaulted him.

The problem is that people like you who believe Zimmerman was guilty think it was just a simple matter of "Zimmerman followed and then killed Trayvon" when that statement isn't even remotely accurate due to how much context it discards.

Let's suppose that "creating the situation" gives the other party permission to assault you (it doesn't,) that "situation" was over the minute Zimmerman returned to his truck to wait for the police. The "situation" in which Trayvon was killed was started when Trayvon decided to return to assault Zimmerman.

Re:End of a Dream

[AlphaWolf_HK]

I think that is genuinely the problem with this trial. Those who believe Zimmerman was guilty tend to believe one or all of the following:

Zimmerman simply followed and then shot Trayvon.
Trayvon was being followed, which gave him the right to assault Zimmerman.
Zimmerman "created a situation" which gave Trayvon the right to assault him.
Being straddled on your back and having your head banged on concrete while that same person is trying to smother you to death doesn't permit you to use lethal force to defend yourself.

Also a lot of them tend to use this as justification for removal of all "stand your ground" laws, even though stand your ground was never used as a defense here.

Re:End of a Dream

[hairyfeet]

Why, because he is black? that gives him some right to kill? Sounds like the only racist here is YOU, that YOU are suffering from classic liberal white guilt and therefor anything a black does to a white is okay, correct?

How do you comment on the 30+ white people attacked after the shooting by blacks saying "Kill YT for Trayvon!" none of which, NOT ONE, even the ones that set a 14 year old kid on fire, were charged with hate crimes? How do you feel about the fact that his OWN MOTHER had gone on record saying she sent him to FLA because he was "out of control"? Or the fact she TRADEMARKED his name and likeness before she even claimed the body? How about the postings of Martin's on FB that went into almost pornographic detail about how much he loved beating a man? How he loved to feel their bones crack, feel their blood pour, and was looking forward to scoring a better gun? Or the fact that he was sporting both Crips tats as well as throwing Crips signs on his FB?

I'm sorry but frankly we are ALL tired of the "white guilt" bullshit as well as the "NAACP racism" like the Martin case. He was already home, if he felt in ANY danger he had a phone in his hand, instead he decided he was gonna "stomp a cracker" only this 6 foot 2 bench pressing 200 pounds thug found out that the cracker could fight back.

Re:End of a Dream

[hairyfeet]

Actually I think its a coast thing as they have what many of us in the south call "coward's laws" where they try to punish anyone who ISN'T a total pussy and tries in any way, shape, or form to defend themselves. See for example the one in NYC where a thug had shot a clerk 4 times and the clerk managed to crawl to a gun and fire back, the prosecutor tried to argue that since the thug had his back turned, never mind that the thug obviously intended to kill the clerk, meant that the clerk was "no longer in fear for his life" and had no right to shoot back.

Frankly I'm just glad it happened in FLA and not the deep south as we don't give a shit WHAT color a person is once a person is in fear for their life, which pounding their head into a curb certainly is, they can do anything they need to to save their life and that is that. Hell I had a friend that shot a guy dead in a bar once, cops get there and all it took was the witnesses to say "Crazy guy pulled out a knife and was coming for him" and nothing more was said, it was justified homicide.

But to me the proof that it was nothing but reverse racism is the little fact that THIRTY PEOPLE were attacked by blacks after the shooting, nearly all said a variation of "kill a YT for Trayvon!" including ones that SET A KID ON FIRE...know how many of those were charged with hate crimes? Know how many screams of outrage did you hear from the administration or Sharpton? I think you know the answer, it was none.

Reverse racism is STILL racism and that is what we had here, look at the incredible hoops the media jumped through trying to keep Martin's FB page out of the spotlight (thanks anonymous!) because it was filled with pics of guns, dope, his own recipe for "purple drank" and a nearly 3 page dialog about how much he got off on beating "punks and snitches" and in great detail, such as how he liked to hear the bones break and to watch their blood spurt. I wonder how many here defending Martin has read his FB postings? How many will even bother now that they know about it?

To me this is the worst part of political correctness, as it always ends up with the person having to divorce reality, like 1984 and newspeak. After all that is the ONLY way they can make the Martin case fit their black and white view of things, Martin MUST have been an angel (because he is black and therefor an oppressed protected class) and Zimmerman HAD to be white, not mixed race, and a racist because who else would shoot a black man, even if they were bashing the other person's head in?

Re:End of a Dream

[Zemran]

"As far as I'm concerned (ianal), "

Dear Sir

We request that you cease and desist from the use if the iAnal trademark registered as part of Apple's marital aids portfolio. We require that you immediately remove the offending post and never use the term again.

Yours etc.

Re:End of a Dream

[StripedCow]

The problem is, he forgot to read out the EULA before he started his speech.

Re:End of a Dream

[fuzznutz]

It does not give them permission to assault you...

Okay. Stop right there. Nothing more needs to be said. There is no need for "but" . Assaulting someone for following you makes you a criminal. Period. If you are frightened, call 911. Trayvon did have a cell phone. He was using it during the event. It was found in the vicinity of the body. Or, you know, he could have just finished walking home. He was only a few doors away.

The situation was not over, or he would have left the area. At least gotten into his locked vehicle. If he called 911 they could get his location from his phone. He could have driven to the nearest intersection.

As most of the Trayvon apologists have harped upon, Zimmerman had every right to be where he was too. He was not under any legal obligation to "leave the area" to placate apologists like you. Or hide in his locked vehicle. Trayvon, on the other hand, was under a legal obligation not to attack Zimmerman. This is clear in the law, custom, and societal norms. Trayvon just had the bad judgment to put the smackdown on a cracker who happened to be armed.

You want to paint Zimmerman as a vigilante. What do you call Trayvon? If you want to know what a vigilante is, look no further. He decided to attack based solely upon the fact that someone was following him. Try doing that next time a plain clothes store detective follows you in the mall. See if your consequences work out better than Trayvon.

Does the Jackson family know about this?

[ackthpt]

I'm certain Michael Jackson's surviving relatives could teach them some real lessons about infighting and degrading the overall value of the property with unseemly squabbles.

i had a dream...

Parasitic leeches.

[Anonymous Coward]

Dr. King was certainly a very positive agent of change in the world. Too bad his children now exemplify everything that is wrong with it.

Re:Parasitic leeches.

[cdrudge]

They exemplify EVERYTHING that's wrong with it? I can think of far, far more examples of things that they aren't exemplifying that's wrong with the world.

This is a family disagreement that has spilled over to an organization tied to the family. Yes it's ugly. Yes MLK probably would have non-violently spanked all his kids over it. But it's hardly exemplify what's wrong with the world.

Re:Parasitic leeches.

[Anonymous Coward]

So that somehow changes his message? Or are you saying people never do anything wrong if they are christian?

1+1=2 would be wrong under your definition because someone who taught it is a hypocrite.

Re:Parasitic leeches.

[flimflammer]

Greed? Yeah, I'd say that's pretty much the basis for almost everything wrong with the world, when it comes to mankind.

I don't think...

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think this was part of King's dream.

Re:I don't think...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

I don't think this was part of King's dream.

Though, if you don't want to be judged by the color of your skin, being filthy stinking rich is a better tactic than most... (also a pretty good way to avoid being judged by the content of your character; but hey!)

I have a dream

[SleazyRidr]

I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will be judged not by the color of their skin but by the contents of their IP portfolio. Where they can use their last name to profit from my legacy.

Re:I have a dream

[ackthpt]

I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will be judged not by the color of their skin but by the contents of their IP portfolio. Where they can use their last name to profit from my legacy.

Tell me about the dream!

As is the case with increasing frequency, one is left to wonder about the implications intellectual property claims have for free speech when they can be applied to so public a figure as Dr. King."

Never mind it was a public performance, with the most memorable part of the speech being ad-libbed by Dr. King.

He must be doing about Warp 6 in his grave.

Re:I have a dream

[Anonymous Coward]

It wasn't quite ad-libbed. Dr. King had already given a good portion of the "I have a dream" speech at a smaller rally in Detroit, but had cut that part from the speech that he was to give in Washington, as he didn't want to look like he was repeating himself. The story goes that midway through his speech at the March on Washington, gospel singer Mahalia Jackson shouted, "Tell 'em about the dream, Martin!" as you allude to in your post. At which point Dr. King uttered the famous line, "I still have a dream." The members of the crowd that had been at the Detroit rally began cheering, because they knew what was coming.

Re:I have a dream

[spire3661]

Copyright status is granted the INSTANT your ideas hit a fixed form. You dont need to do anything for it to be granted.

Re:I have a dream

[spire3661]

I disagree. Once a work has reached a certain cultural ubiquity, there is no point in continued copyright protection. The song 'Happy Birthday' is my go-to example. The song has such an incredibly high cultural penetration that society is harmed more then it is helped by perpetuating its protection.

Re:I have a dream

[sconeu]

Not in 1963, it wasn't.

Re:I have a dream

[booch]

Copyright before 1976 did NOT automatically get granted when the ideas hit a fixed form.

I have a nightmare...

[Russ1642]

...that my children will undo everything positive about my life.

useless parasites

[jmcvetta]

These useless parasites - King's sons - are stealing our culture. They are a disgrace to Dr King's memory.

Re:useless parasites

[Lord Apathy]

I agree. Enough is enough. All of King's speeches, images, and works should be taken from this greedy family and placed in the public domain. They belong to everyone and not just whoever can pay for them.

Re:I have a dream...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

...of many more years of royalites!

Call me racist, but this type of stuff coming from minorities does not surprise me.

Is there any population group where dickheaded infighting over who gets to inherit the family cash is a surprise? Even people too poor to have assets worth fighting over can use 'dividing the estate' as a proxy for all the childhood emnities over who mommy and daddy loved best, magnified by all the anxiety, rivalry, bitterness, and jealousy about who did, and didn't, achieve the life that they wanted for themselves, with nothing but a few trinkets of sentimental value. Once you put some cash on the table... break out the lawyers.

MLK Jr.'s sons should be ashamed.

[Apharmd]

Do you think that King would want his speech (of historical importance) locked up behind copyright? Is this how they choose to honor their father's memory?
Just disgusting.

posthumous copyright

[intermodal]

This kind of thing is a great example of why long posthumous copyrights need to be abolished. Along with a certan quantity of other copyright schemes. This in no way encourages the creation of new works, nor innovation except in the field of fivolous lawsuits.

Re:posthumous copyright

[AnotherAnonymousUser]

Careful - expiring copyright upon death might yield an incentive to kill the author so their works can be profited from. Stranger things happen every day, and there's probably a good reason to keep some measure of timeframe for expiration after death, even if the current 70-100 years is too long.

Copywritten?

[chrismcb]

I wondered how this speech could even be copyrighted, as apparently it wasn't registered. Mr wiki says there was a lawsuit a few years ago to determine whether the speech was copyrighted or not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Have_a_Dream
What I don't get is, Mr wiki also claims the speech is under copyright for 120 years, but shouldn't it have been death + 50 years?
The worst part about it, is I find it difficult to believe that someone who made a speech like that would not want it in the public domain. Not having it in the public domain sort of defeats the purpose of the speech.

Re:Copywritten?

[evilRhino]

If we put the speech in the public domain, what incentive would MLK, Jr. have to make more speeches. This is about protecting the artists people!

My lawyer friends "Had a Dream"

[triffid_98]

I say to you today, my friends, so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.

I have a dream that one day my children will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these images and speeches to be copyrighted, and that it should be self-evident: that all of my children are entitled to residual revenue in perpetuity, as authorized under section 6 of the copyright act of 1976"

If you're going to be pedantic, at least be right.

[Valdrax]

IP means "intellectual property," as you well know, which is a broad term for the only semi-related torts and laws governing the use and reproduction of ideas: copyright, patents, trademarks & trade dress, publicity, and trade secrets. Copyright is one of the three main pillars of IP law.

If you want to bitch about how useless "intellectual property" is as a term when it covers such disparate and unrelated laws & torts, then you're several centuries too late. All of property law has long been described as "a bundle of sticks," because there's almost no relation between trespass & nuisance, wills & trusts and other estate law, landlord-tenant law, easements, covenants, water rights, subsurface rights, bailment, all the dozens of other semi-random "involves a thing or place" legal concepts you have learn in Property class. But without the full set, the concept of property falls apart.

Same goes for intellectual property, right or wrong.

Re:Happy Birthday

[Entropius]

It's unique in that it's a milestone political speech. Having it in the public domain greatly enhances our ability, years later, to have a political conversation referencing it.

Re:Stupid is as stupid does

[Agent0013]

Whatever! I'm not going out of may way and paying almost $20 to try to get a copy of the speech to watch it. I'm fine spending my time learning about other more interesting parts of American history. In fact, I won't even bother to look for a torrent, just because I couldn't care less!

So THAT was his dream!?!?

[Guru80]

I didn't know his dream was for his sons to make a fortune off his activism...silly me.