It costs ten bucks to watch MLK's "I Have A Dream" speech. Ouch.

[KamaAina]

http://news.yahoo.com/great-martin-luther-king-copyright-conundrum-170521665.html

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.

At the family’s Web site, videotapes and audiotapes of the speech can be purchased for $10 a piece. The family controls the copyright of the speech for 70 years after King’s death, in 2038.

We know what you're thinking: why the heck do we have to pay to watch American history? If the Smithsonian National Museum of American History is free -- seriously, next time you're in DC swing by and check out the full size replica of Julia Childs's kitchen -- why on Earth would we have to pay $10 to watch Martin Luther King change the course of American history?

It's not the Martin Luther King estate's fault, necessarily. As we suggested in the lede, American copyright law is in a silly state. Not only was it written well before the Internet existed, U.S. copyright law was written in another century. The idea that drives copyright law, legal experts have said, is a good one. Intellectual property is difficult to protect (read: easy to steal) and the attempt to regulate it by punishing thieves makes good sense. However, there's a case that folks would at place like Creative Commons and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) that copyright law is intensely behind-the-times. This is partially why the debate against SOPA has become so muddled with controversy. Lawmakers admit that they don't understand how the Internet works, and it's a becoming a pretty big problem. At the very least -- and as Barack Obama's recent statements about SOPA suggest -- it's becoming an issue in the 2012 Elections. Pasternack's post itself is timely not only because of Obama's recent statements but also because it's Martin Luther King Day. And Martin Luther King Jr. as well as his "I Have a Dream" speech is awesome.

Not to get all dramatic about it or anything, but it seems pretty unbelievable that you'd have to pay to watch MLK's most memorable moment. As the recent controversy around the suggestive wording on a statue honoring the civil rights leader suggest, his legacy can be a controversial one. There is, however, no discernable justification for why it should be an expensive one.

[cthulu2016]

1. That counter-argument is bizarre

"It's not the Martin Luther King estate's fault, necessarily. As we suggested in the lede, American copyright law is in a silly state."

There is quite obviously nothing in copyright law demanding that someone chagre $10. If some legal intricacy required them to charge something to maintain copyright (doubtful) they could charge a penny.

[hlthe2b]

3. His kids have fought with each other 4 years while allowing his memorial to all but fall to weeds...

Unfortunately, even before their Mother's death, they were at each other left and right. Sad, really.

I'm hoping something has happened to restore his Atlanta legacy, but counterproductive does not begin to cover it.

[frazzled]

2. Then why can I see it on YouTube right now?

Frankly, I think it was wrong to give copyright to the family, given that this was a televised "news event." But the court case was settled. I don't think it should reflect on all of copyright law, however.

On Edit: took down link to YouTube, in case it's an issue.

[tridim]

5. Yea, I just looked it up too. Came right up on Google.

The premise is simply not true. What is this article really about?

[snooper2]

4. You mean this speech that's playing on my PC right now?

[starroute]

6. Here's an article with more on the issue

http://motherboard.vice.com/2012/1/16/copyright-king-why-the-i-have-a-dream-speech-still-isn-t-free

Any unauthorized usage of the speech and a number of other speeches by King – including in PBS documentaries – is a violation of American law. You’d be hard pressed to find a good complete video version on the web, and it’s not even to be found in the new digital archive of the King Center’s website. If you want to watch the whole thing, legally, you’ll need to get the $20 DVD.

That’s because the King estate, and, as of 2009, the British music publishing conglomerate EMI Publishing, owns the copyright of the speech and its recorded performance. While the copyright restriction isn’t news, EMI’s unusual role in policing the use of King’s words – the first instance of the company taking on a non-music based intellectual property catalog – hasn’t been widely reported. In November 2011, EMI Group was auctioned off, and the publishing business was sold to a consortium run by Sony Corp for $2.2 billion. . . .

The awkward tussle over MLK’s words bears recounting, especially given the ongoing controversy over the Stop Online Privacy Act, which targets copyright infringements on the Internet – and highlights all sorts of problems with our aging copyright system and general ignorance about how ideas actually spread in the digital age. It also highlights the risks of a forceful anti-piracy law. Under a previous version of the SOPA bill, educational websites that host unlicensed versions of copyrighted political and cultural documents could be as easily blocked as a website hosting pirated films. . . .

King himself donated proceeds from licensing the speech to fund the civil rights movement, and the King family has made similar pledges. But while legal scholars might defend the family’s legal right to King’s legacy — and few would argue with the family’s right to earn proceeds from that legacy — others focus on the larger, obvious point: whether or not King would have wanted his ideas used in advertising, he certainly wouldn’t have wanted them to be kept out of documentaries about the history of the civil rights movement, for instance.

[frazzled]

7. MLK site: "Unlicensed use of the speech or a part of it can still be lawful in some circumstances ..

especially in jurisdictions under doctrines such as fair use or fair dealing."

Their entire statement:

I Have a Dream Copyright Information


Copyright Dispute: Because King's speech was broadcast to a large radio and television audience, there was controversy about the copyright status of the speech. If the performance of the speech constituted "general publication", it would have entered the public domain due to King's failure to register the speech with the Registrar of Copyrights. If the performance only constituted "limited publication", however, King retained common law copyright. This led to a lawsuit, Estate of Martin Luther King, Jr., Inc. v. CBS, Inc., which established that the King estate does hold copyright over the speech and had standing to sue; the parties then settled. Unlicensed use of the speech or a part of it can still be lawful in some circumstances, especially in jurisdictions under doctrines such as fair use or fair dealing. Under the applicable copyright laws, the speech will remain under copyright in the United States until 70 years after King's death, thus until 2038.

Deposition of Martin Luther King regarding copyright infringement.
Case File Number 63 Civ 2889, Civil Case Files; United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
Download the full deposition (PDF)

http://www.mlkonline.net/dream.html

However, it doesn't look like EMI is going very far to remove the whole (yes, that you tube video is the entire 17+ minutes) speech. Or at least perhaps around MLK Day.

Look, I believe the King family has the right to make money off of this, especially to support the many activities and costs of keeping up the King estate. And I especially believe they have the right to control who and where this speech can be used: there are contexts and persons I believe they have the right to deny use to, because it does not comport with the way in which their relative would have wanted it (say, in a vodka commercial, or by a hate group). They won their case fair and square. But I don't think they are being hard-assed about enforcing this: fair use seems to be widely interpreted.

[MellowDem]

9. As is often the case...

families can't live up to such legacies. Let's just hope they don't destroy it

[gratuitous]

8. I wonder if Yahoo news is similarly exercised about Disney copyrights?

The rights to the images of such beloved cartoons as Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck should long ago have passed into the public domain, but the Disney Corporation, through an army of well-financed lobbyists, continues to extend its exclusive copyright, and woe to anyone who infringes or even thinks about infringing on that copyright.

[bigmonkey]

11. Past a certain point, the U.S. should charge a corporate copyright holder for the rights.

Otherwise it expires. The charge should increase with time. It could max out at a certain level. This would allow a corporation like the evil Disney corporation to keep its mitts on Mickey, and let the rest of us to enjoy human civilization. I think that point should be 20 years or so.

[MilesColtrane]

10. Copyright should extend through the creator's life +25 years.

Last edited Tue Jan 17, 2012, 03:59 PM - Edit history (1)

That's enough time for someone's work to help fund their children through a college education if they desire it.

After that, the heirs should have to generate their own income.