The Copyright Nightmare of 'I Have a Dream' 366
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."
MLK's Family Received 800k from the Memorial (Score:5, Informative)
This is patently false. (Score:5, Informative)
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."
Not on YouTube (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, the speech is not on YouTube. Not here [youtube.com], here [youtube.com], or even here [youtube.com]. It's definitely not here [youtube.com].
Re:MLK's Family Received 800k from the Memorial (Score:5, Informative)
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/ [thinkprogress.org]
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.
Ignorant of the facts much? (Score:4, Informative)
The copyright notice, hastily scribbled onto the text of the speech by Mr. King's attorney as copies were being mimeographed in the press tent the day of the speech is one of the financial pillars that gave MLK's organization the funding to keep moving forward.
To be clear, the speech had been pressed onto records and was being sold over over the country as a single. The MLK foundation stepped in, enforced the copyright, and claimed a cut to continue Mr. King's work.
Martin Luther King, Jr. vs Mister Maestro, Inc., and 20th Century-Fox Record Corporation USDC, S.D.N.Y. (12-13-1963) 224 F.Supp.101, 140 USPQ 366. Since I'm guessing you do not actually know -- MLK died on April 4, 1968, about 5 years after you think he was "rolling over in his grave."
-GiH
Re:Not on YouTube (Score:2, Informative)
Oh, and it isn't here either:
http://www.archive.org/details/MLKDream
King children care about money, not father (Score:5, Informative)
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:MLK's Family Received 800k from the Memorial (Score:5, Informative)
For those that don't catch the reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter_rabbit_incident
Re:Only 27 more years until public domain (Score:5, Informative)
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.
More to the Story.... (Score:4, Informative)
The entry/non-entry of Dr. King's speech into the public domain is a famous case in copyright circles - and in fact, was one reason the copyright laws were changed. It's a fascinating story.
First you need to realize that prior to 1976, unless you put a copyright mark on a document and properly registed it, it was presumed to be in the public domain as soon as it was made public. This led to a number of problems and disputes, and today is widely viewed as being overly punative to people who simply forget to put the mark on a document before releasing it. Today's copyright laws eliminate the "all or nothing" nature of the 1909 Act, and sensibly declare that copyright rests with the author, regardless of whether they properly marked it.
Second, there's an interesting history behind the I Have a Dream speech. While the factual accounts of exactly what happened differ, Dr. King and his associates apparently distributed advance copies of the speech without the copyright mark on them to a group of journalists. Recognizing that this was a serious error, others within Dr. King's circle reportedly re-collected each of the advance copies, and then redistributed them with the copyright mark hand written on the document. So there was a factual question as to whether the textual copy of the speech was put into the public domain or not registered with the copyright office correctly.
There was less dispute over the video and audio. As others have noted, Dr. King improvised/departed from the prepared text a number of times. So there was an argument that, even if Dr. King had lost the copyright on the original text (which is itself debatable), he maintained the copyright on the "performance" of the speach, and was thus entitled to a separate copyright (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estate_of_Martin_Luther_King,_Jr.,_Inc._v._CBS,_Inc. [wikipedia.org]).
I also believe that the speech is freely licensed to anyone engaging in educational activities - so it's not quite as eggregious on the part of the family as many have suggested.