I kept thinking about what we could do now. I doubt the copyright owner thinks about copyright laws like we do -- freedom, culture evolving, etc. Other posts on this thread say "Martin Luther King's descendants ... are disgracing the man's heritage," they probably don't know our perspective. They haven't read The Right to Read -- http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html. They probably intend to keep others from messing it up.

Instead of insulting them, we might try to educate them on our perspective and see if they might be persuaded to release it under the GPL or something similar. If Sony has it, they may be unwilling to change, but maybe the family?

If an inflexible conglomerate already has it, what can we learn from them about getting the owners of rights to culturally important copyrighted works first? There are more of us. Why did they get there first? How can we do better next time?

I want copyright law changed, but in the meantime, this work and many like it could be GPL'ed. Why don't we make that happen?

Am I allowed to copyright a work derived from a collage of other people's works? If I incorporated one of your posts into a blog post of mine, could I copyright the entirety of the blog post?

According to the letter of the law, King's estate should have been entitled only to copyright the portions of the "I Have a Dream" speech that contained 100% original material [1]. Yet these are not the most recognizable or famous portions of the speech, and they're not the portions King's estate has often licensed out to advertisers, etc. Almost all of the words most famously associated with the "I Have a Dream" speech are borrowed from other source material. And, unless I'm missing something -- I'm not a lawyer, so that's possible -- they should not have been granted to King's estate in the first place. Perhaps the current laws on the books took effect after that granting?

[1]From 17 U.S.C. SS 103(b): "The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material. The copyright in such work is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting material."

[1] IANAL

EDIT: s/That/That's/

If I make a collage of other people's works, the other works still belong to them, but the way I put them together belongs to me. Actually, this doesn't seem terribly "nuanced".

It's an interesting comment on our society that it prefers to attribute this type of artistic work to the performer, rather than the actual writer. Perhaps future generations will see MLK simply as the man who read Stanley Levison's great speeches, or Obama as the actor who brought Jon Favreau alive. We give props to Yo-Yo Ma for a great performance of Bach, too, but we don't talk about "Ma's fugue." And there's a very well-developed system for distinguishing between composition and performance copyrights...

I always have the same reaction when I see a quote attributed to an actor in a film rather than the writer of the film, too. Similarly comedians (like Bob Hope) are often attributed for the work of gag writers.

It's an interesting that this seldom happens in theatre, music or literature but often happens in film, comedy and speeches.

I wonder why this is? Is it simply that we assume live speakers to be speaking off-the-cuff and the same translates to film? If so then why don't we do the same for Theatre?

Speechwriters are largely unknown, at least relative to the "performer" -- the same goes for comedy (let's say stand-up comedy since it's differentiated from theater and film in your list), and even film, quite often. On the converse, when you see a performance of "Hamlet", who's better-known? The high school kid bemoaning Horatio, or Shakespeare? I think it's just a convenient shortcut for people to attribute a quote to a performer rather than original author, in cases where the original author may be difficult to discern.

I mean, I can go to imdb.com and find out who wrote the screenplay for "Air Force One", but that still doesn't tell me for sure who originated the line "Get off my plane!" Harrison Ford may have ad-libbed it, or the director may have added it, for all we know.

Thus far I guess our society hasn't found it that necessary to create a culture of strict attribution.

For theater, part of the reason may be that most theatrical productions are performed by numerous actors. Just think of how many Hamlets there have been over the years. Even modern theater is usually performed by numerous groups. Given this, it's pretty easy to say that the "definitive" work is the actual written play. However, when it comes to movies the "definitive" work is seen as the performance by the one actor that was in the movie.

I think that varies by genre. It's certainly true around pop music. But I don't think so much for, say, metal.

On the other hand, having recently watched a few episodes of VH1's "Clasic Albums" series (at least I think that's what it was), I was really surprised to see the amount of creative input that came from the album's producers. I was surprised to see that the melody of Kiss's "Beth" was written by the producer, and that Bob Rock did so much with Metallica (unfortunately?) in building the songs for The Black Album, albeit it out of riffs written by the band.

It happens all the time in music. Songwriters are seldom as well-known as performers, and you could argue that they do the lion's share of the "authorship" of a given song. Most of them arrange the music and write the lyrics. It's a rare instance where a songwriter becomes prominent enough, in his or her own right, to rise to the fame and fortune of his or her star performer. For every Quincy Jones or Leonard Bernstein, you have 100 songwriters and producers laboring in obscurity behind big-ticket artists. (In fairness, though, highly successful songwriters earn residuals on their work, and thus tend to be handsomely rewarded. They get the fortune, if not necessarily the fame or the popular attribution).

Theatre is an interesting exception to the general rule. Some of it is a function of time. We have every reason to believe, for instance, that William Shakespeare was less famous in his day than were the best-known actors who performed his work. But since there was no technology around back then to record the performances for posterity, the only things that survived were the written works -- attributed solely to the playwright.

The rise of credit for performer, rather than writer, probably has a lot to do with the rise of the recording and media industries.

In fairness, any truly great screenwriter or director will tell you that performers really do contribute enormously to the final product. A great screenplay is a great screenplay, but the finished film is a substantially different piece of work. A screenplay is to a film what an outline is to a paper, or what a wireframe is to a website. It's critical, but it's highly theoretical and open to myriad different interpretations. The interpretation that ended up on film, in this case, is the work of multiple "authors."

Theater, music (I'll assume we're not talking about "popular" music, but something more like classical music here), and literature tend to have known authors, and tend to have a wide variety of performances. (Although literature is weird to include in this list, I think).

Film, comedy (since it's differentiated from theater and film here, let's say stand-up comedy) and speeches have known performers. Authors in film are sometimes relatively well-known, but I think attributions to actors rather than characters in films aren't that common.

Also, King improvised the "I have a dream" and "Let freedom ring" parts--based on previously existing phrases.

This page shows the differences between the prepared and delivered remarks: http://xroads.virginia.edu/~public/civilrights/a0129.html

The principle that the ghostwriter does not exist is certainly a well-known principle. It may even be a legal principle. The Supreme Court may endorse it unanimously - the Pope, himself, declare it infallibly correct.

This doesn't necessarily make it a true, valid, good or appropriate principle, however. For instance, there is no real trace of this species of professional ventriloquist in any century but the 20th - and very little before the middle 20th. The first US president to use ghostwriters routinely was FDR, and his listeners were by no means regularly reminded of the practice.

In previous eras, the idea that any public figure, other than an actual actor, would be reciting someone else's words, would have been thought ridiculous and pathetic. Pitt the Younger didn't employ a speechwriter. Nor did Gladstone, Cromwell, Lincoln, Elizabeth I, etc, etc.

There's nothing new about speechwriting. Antiphon of Rhamnus(480–411 BC) was a professional speechwriter. Calling them ventriloquists entirely misses the point. The speaker is the one responsible for the words. He doesn't read whatever is put in front of him. He directs the speechwriter to write what the speaker wants to say and is responsible for accepting, rejecting, or modifying it.

George Washington and Andrew Jackson did read others words as their own. Although Lincoln wrote his own speeches, he circulated drafts for comment and incorporated ideas from those comments.

Jackson was notoriously illiterate. Washington was a stuffed shirt whose brain was largely provided by Hamilton. These are examples of the 20th century avant la lettre - neither statesman would have admitted the practice. Dishonorable behavior is not precluded in societies with strong honor codes - as we can see from Dr. King's own academic record.

"The point of this article is to make clear Watson was not the author of the speech. The sentiments of the speech, that is, the core of its authority and authorship, were mine. I had discussed with Watson on dozens of occasions how non-indigenous Australia could never make good our relationship with indigenous people until we came clean about the history."

"written" and "drafted with assistance" arn't quite the same thing. Though imo it's a silly point regardless.

There was an interesting interview with one of them on British TV last year and he said as much particularly he claimed the "I have a dream" part.

Here's Jones' own recollection of the process (http://nexoscapital.com/articles_pdf/TheManWho_06-04.pdf). With some cuts:

When King headed to Atlanta just days before the march, Jones and Levison stayed in New York to craft the speech. They titled it "Normalcy -- Never Again." After three drafts, they got a copy to King, who made crucial substantive changes. Then, on the evening before the event, they all rendezvoused in the Willard Hotel, in Washington, DC. King, in essence, held court in the lobby and listened to all his key advisers' suggestions. "Martin kept saying, 'Clarence, are you taking notes?' Jones recalls. And I said, 'Yes.' We both kinda rolled our eyes at each other. The other leaders were determined to tell Martin what to say and how to say it.'

"I visited Martin in his hotel suite that evening," Andrew Young remembers. "Martin was working away, editing the speech text, desperate to find the exact right word for every sentence. Clarence was coming and going, giving Martin encouragement and ideas."

By five A.M., King's speech had been mimeographed and was being passed out to the press. When informed two hours later of the document's dissemination, Jones put an immediate halt to it. "I called Martin in his room and said, 'You know, this could be a major speech, and I'm concerned that you are protective of the ownership of this. So we've got to be sure it's not published... don't give up the copyright.' Little did I anticipate that my act of moderate wisdom would be deemed as the most prescient service I rendered for King."

Jones roots around his office and eventually produces the original 1963 copyright application for the "I Have a Dream" address. Jones had ensured that the speech would not become part of the public domain but would instead belong to King and, eventually, his heirs. "Whenever oral recordings or republications of the speech are sold without permission from the King Estate," Jones boasts, "a lawsuit occurs."

When King finished the speech, he came over and shook his cohort's hand. "You was smoking," a euphoric Jones told him. "The words was so hot they was just burning off the page!"

Something tells me they would not be interested in releasing the speech under the GPL.

http://savannahnow.com/stories/102501/LOCmlkmemory.shtml

Ahahaha. No, you would have better luck persuading Sony than the family. The family is very clear: MLK is a goldmine they will exploit as much as possible. This is the same family that has so far made somewhere around a million dollars in licensing and consulting fees from the DC memorial (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King,_Jr._Memori...).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King,_Jr._Memori...

Lacking support with relevant facts, details, and rationales, the argument is, for me, entirely unpersuasive.

Although I am certainly not an expert on the history of Civil Rights in the 1960's, I was curious as to who Bill Rutherford was and what he did. Before I found much I came across the source from which the author lifted:

>“I think Martin Luther King must be spinning in his grave,” Bill Rutherford, who was executive director of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference when King was murdered, told 60 Minutes. “He gave his life for his ideas of justice, peace and love. He attempted his entire life to communicate ideas for free. To communicate, not to sell,” he says.

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-18560_162-319500.html

What about mentioning how often the speech is cited, how common place phrases from it are, etc.?

Regardless of the importance issue, we are discussing a speech given by one man nearly half a century ago to a huge audience in a public place. Today, that speech has somehow become the intellectual property of Sony.

As the relevant jurisdiction here is the US, we can ask directly what the Constitution has to say about this:

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

I fail to see how

1. the above situation promotes the progress of science or useful arts,

2. Sony is the author or inventor of this work, or

3. protection that lasts longer than the average human lifetime is limited in any meaningful way.

After three strikes, I think you're supposed to be out.

1. Speech writing is considered a useful art. Creative works of authorship generally are. If you want to argue that point in general, fine... but let's put it into a general context instead of just focusing on this one speech.

2. Sony is of course not the author. But MLK is, and he never put this speech in the public domain. He certainly could have if he wanted to, but he didn't. His rights passed to his estate. His estate isn't the author either, but it has the right to sell or license. None of this is controversial or unexpected.

3. I tend to agree with you here.

It is today. And copyright durations are long and based on the author's lifetime today.

But Martin Luther King made this speech in 1963, and in 1963 copyright worked differently. It had a much shorter initial period and could then be renewed once for a second term. "I Have A Dream" would have entered the public domain later this decade, even if MLK had survived to renew it.

So, to address the specific points:

> 1. Speech writing is considered a useful art. Creative works of authorship generally are.

Indeed, and they are rightly protected. But retrospectively extending that protection for the benefit of unrelated third parties long after MLK's death hardly promotes such arts. Clearly he did give the speech without the need of today's rewards, and clearly he isn't going to be motivated to speak again because of them.

And please notice that this argument is entirely general and does not rely in any way on the fame or cultural significance of this particular work.

> 2. Sony is of course not the author.

Indeed. And nothing in the Constitution says anything about protecting the rights of anyone but the Authors and Inventors.

You appeal to the rights of the estate and the ability to sell or licence copyrights, but these are modern legal inventions, just like effectively unlimited protection terms. They most certainly are controversial and unexpected, relative to both the Constitution's basis for copyright and the law that was in effect in 1963. To accept the premise that these legal games are necessarily in the interests of promoting arts and sciences and encouraging authors and inventors is to miss the entire point of this debate.

The right to sell... perhaps not quite as well-established or self-evident as the right to license. But still, my guess would be that it's been around since long before MLK was born. But like I said, I haven't actually researched these questions.

I would agree that if you can't at least grant temporary rights to make copies for the purposes of accessing the work, copyright is of limited usefulness in the Internet age. (Of course, this in itself is a relatively modern concern as well. If you go back far enough, it really would have been the copyright holder who was physically making all the copies anyway, and no licensing at all would have been necessary).

I think a lot of the trouble with copyright in practice today comes down to precisely that disconnect between the original artist and the long-term copyright holder. If copyrights could not be transferred, only delegated for a relatively short period, then all the middleman industries that tend to take the lion's share of the profits today at the expense of both artist and public would necessarily become subservient to the artists again, which I think would fix a lot of problems. If you are only going to get your contract as a distributor/marketer/whatever renewed after six months if you've been getting good returns for the artist for a fair price, and the artist can take their best-selling book or platinum-selling album to another distributor next week if they aren't happy with the deal, then a lot of inequalities get balanced out.

Then again, the Internet will probably render most middleman distributors irrelevant soon anyway. The process has already started, it's just that for now it remains the preserve of the technically knowledgeable and the trailblazers. Hopefully, as self-publishing becomes more mainstream, the result will be a rise of a new class of companies who provide actually useful/valuable services to artists, such as editorial/design work for authors or effective promotion that generates measurable returns for musicians.

Moreover, if transfers of rights could only be temporary, then an estate could only benefit for a genuinely limited time from the work of a deceased artist, instead of several generations receiving income in return for doing nothing effectively in perpetuity. It would be enough that an artist who had invested hard work in creating something valuable that should support his or her family could know that their family really would be supported for a while in the event of their untimely death, which seems reasonably fair, but that would be it.

Licensing law has really only taken off in the 20th century I believe, but there's older stuff that's very related.

Courts have long been troubled by licensing/assignment issues. IP is a "chose in action", and it's something that's more general. The older issue is about assigning debts. Here's an old Ontario law based on a UK statute I believe that allows for a certain kind of assignment after 1897: http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_stat....

They made money off of that one.

Maybe the "not the public" summation is a poor one.

I've often thought it would be beneficial to the cause of history and governmental transparency to get more videos, recordings, and photographs of our important leaders (presidential candidates, et al) into the public domain. I had thought it was something a non-profit, a quasi-governmental corporation like PBS, or a governmental department could organize. But I don't know how copyright law interacts with public performances (obviously).

https://www.democracynow.org/2008/1/21/dr_martin_luther_king...

Yikes. He really was a progressive leader. Makes you wonder in perspective how we are going to someday see people for supporting Gitmo or giving gays "some rights" but not all rights.

They don't show the five years between, despite his greater experience, awareness, and maturity. In those years he took on greater issues of a system that created so much poverty and created war.

I think they don't cover those years because those issues remain and would force them to take on current issues they don't want to. Since his earlier work is better publicized, I find learning about his later work teach me more about him, his work, those issues, and leadership. The Riverside Church speech against the war in Vietnam was an incredibly courageous speech I consider right on, displaying mastery of the issues, his audience, oratory, ... basically every element of leadership.

I think most of us know the answer to that question.

Sadly, history will also record that the ruling class of our age often acted to benefit their own self-serving interests, just like the ruling class of every age before us. We call them politicians and corporate executives rather than royalty and nobility, and we call ourselves middle class or working class rather than serfs or slaves, but the balance of power isn't so very different when you get right down to it.

The really insidious thing about our age, though, is that a significant fraction of the injustices are impersonal. People become victims of the The System, where no individual has ever personally chosen to harm them, yet harmed they are all the same. Even if the rich and powerful want to change The System for the better, it can be difficult for them to do so because of perceived consequences in terms of social norms or political fall-out. That in turn is partly because of the mistrust that has built up between the working classes and the ruling class, and the resulting apathy among (in a democratic set-up) the voters.

The remarkable thing about people like Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks was that they stood up and followed their beliefs despite the risks. That is why they are remembered as heroes. It's a shame that The System today has evolved, probably inadvertently, so that it's almost impossible for such heroes ever to reach positions of real power now. Blame it on the political machine, the military-industrial complex, media empires, or whatever you like; they're just different sides of the same problem.

Perhaps one day, history will record that a real leader did make it to the top against the odds, and they made statements of substance and honesty, and they adopted policies of justice and fairness, and they fought for causes worth fighting for, and that was when the damage of the past few years started to be undone. We can but hope.

Would MLK want people to pay $20 to watch his speech?

"King himself donated proceeds from licensing the speech to fund the civil rights movement"

This sure makes it sound like he wasn't ignorant of copyright law and its impact on his speeches.

EDIT: Come on, downvoters — do you really mean to suggest that King would have wanted a civil rights memorial to have to pay out his family before it could celebrate his cause?

I suppose I'll have to assume you don't think that it does, since you're evading the question.

To answer your question, I don't think MLK's speech was either science nor a "useful art" so it wouldn't have an effect either way.

"if we put all the speeches in the public domain, professional speechwriters would find it much harder to make a living"

Yeah. If I were to give a public performance of this speech in my public library that would really hurt speechwriters.

I'll give you a hint, it works like this:

  Person A needs a speech.  They ask Person B to write one.

  Person B agrees in exchange for money.  They both sign a contract.

  Person A receives the speech.  Person B gets paid per the contract.

  Person A gives the speech.

  Person C through Z copy the speech and give it themselves.  Nobody cares.

Is that really better than:

Person A needs a speech. Person B writes a speech for them and collects $x royalties when person A gives it, and each time person C-Z (who really liked it) give it. Now everyone gets a good speech, and person B is actually able to write speeches for a living.

Why do we need to make it so that B can make a living off of speeches? That's stupid. B has no more claim to make a living off of speeches than I do to make a living writing Python.

The whole reason capitalism is supposed to work is that it properly allocates resources--and if speeches aren't actually worth enough to make a living on, maybe you should do something besides writing speeches.

It's about tragedy of the commons. When each person is looking out for their own interests, they might not think that e.g. filmmakers are worth the millions of dollars it takes to make a movie. Then out society wouldn't have any big-budget movies, and we'd all be worse off. But of they get copyright and can charge theaters for showing the movies, then they can make the movies. And our society in general is better off.

That is quite a leap of logic... Though it is interesting that you use the example of film, considering how often film so often lifts from the public domain.

My main argument goes like this:

(lemma) All Evil and bad in the world is the result of scarcity.

(lemma) Knowledge and experience are components of the Good (or at least not of the Evil).

(fact) Knowledge can be duplicated for negligible cost with modern technology.

(conclusion) Distribution of knowledge, being effectively free, is also part of the Good.

(fact) Copyright limits distribution, increasing scarcity.

(from above) Scarcity is the root of all Evil. Copyright increases scarcity.

(conclusion) Copyright begets Evil.

A bit Old-testament, mind you, but I really do believe this to be the case.

You are absolutely correct in the idea that without copyright modern cinema (for example) wouldn't exist.

The problem I have with your example of movies is that there are many assumptions being made that I don't think are reasonable: we don't "need" big-budget movies, society isn't automatically "better off" because of the movies, and the movies don't "need" to cost as much as they do.

If movie production had to be paid for, up front, before being made and put to film, this would be fine. You would bet your ass that "Hollywood Accounting" would disappear, because the margins would be too slim to allow otherwise.

You have a pile of money and expectations that you'll make a movie; if you don't pull it off, you are publicly shamed (thank you Internet!) and never able to raise a cent again. If you do pull it off, you got payed (you did factor in cost of your time in your budget quote, right?) and the people got their movie. If it's pirated it doesn't matter because it was already totally paid for. It's a wonderful thing.

The Great Pyramids of Egypt and the Great Wall of China and the World archipelago in Dubai are all amazing achievements--but would you ever pay for them today with a straight face?

For good measure:

Consider the top 50 most expensive films of all time ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_films ), and then consider how much money they brought in. The entire system was a "valid allocation" because of copyright guaranteeing a return on investment, whereas otherwise it never would've gotten made ("So, you want me to pay you $20 so in 4 years I get to watch a movie about the Titanic?").

And now think about how many people in the US couldn't afford medical care. Or couldn't afford housing. Or couldn't eat healthily. Or couldn't afford education.

This, while the very society and civilization they've ceded control of their lives to goes to great lengths to ensure the unequal distribution of goods and services! Goods and services that ought to be free to duplicate!

The whole thing is an embarrassment to our species.

I don't mind for a damned second paying for a project, but I most certainly mind subsidizing thugs to beat a captive market while people are suffering.

~

I'm not against movies, art, music, literature, or whatever else. I just think that regulatory capture of modern copyright (and for that matter, patent) law is more trouble than its worth.

At the end of the day, you do realize that the endgame of this all is not being able to tell another human being a story or sing them a song or show them a picture without paying a fee somehow?

Copyright is enforcing the idea that that most noble of pursuits--sharing, alleviating that one great Evil of scarcity for your fellow man--is somehow wrong. It's disgusting.

  Person A needs a speech.

  Person A gets a loan, or works out a payment system with Person B.

  Person A gives speeches.

  Person B writes a speech.

  Person B gets paid.

  Person B, having realized the *actual* value of their work keeps on working like
   everybody else does.

Nobody did it until Edison in the late 19th century. Why? Because the idea of doing something is in most cases more elusive than the ability to do so.

As you say, "Rights were already being sold".

Can anyone with more knowledge of copyright law explain this? Are televised speeches usually public domain?

^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estate_of_Martin_Luther_King,_J...

Got it.

Sorry if it makes less sense now but the article is a worthy read.

In a nutshell, you won't be able to watch the video for free until 2038 in the USA

http://movies.netflix.com/Movie/Martin-Luther-King-Jr-I-Have...

The great part ("I have a dream...") of the speech is available everywhere without paying. It's the truly memorable part of the speech. In fact, I'd bet that 99% who have heard of the speech have heard only that part of the speech.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_Different

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nyYloJyq9M

The model building codes which are both incorporated by reference into many laws and are protected by copyright as model building codes, provided the test case.

Veeck v SBCCI

http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/293_F3d_791.htm

Some things are too important to lock down and copyright, at least not until 2038.

> Some things are too important to lock down and copyright, at least not until 2038.

And the copyright law language embodying that principle is?

> If enough people think it should be, we can write it down and make it law.

Oh really? If enough people think that pi should be 3, can we pass a law and it will be so?

There are lots of things that people want that can't be codified with the desired properties. This is something that looks (to me) to be on the edge.

How about some other examples? (If it's just "I have a dream", we can pass specific legislation.)

"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 ..... the judge determined that the speech was a performance distributed to the news media and not the public, making it a “limited” as opposed to a “general” publication. That meant the speech, like other “performances” on CBS, was not in the public domain. That meant the King estate had the right to claim copyright"

This is relatively readable: http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19989079.MAN.pdf

"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."

The lawsuit was filed in 1963 when Dr. King was very much alive.

An article like this could easily become a rallying cry for abolishing copyright but when you dig deeper it really doesn't lend itself to total copyright abolishment as much as you'd think.

It's interesting when you bear in mind that Dr. Martin Luther King held copyright on this speech and used the copyright laws to control how his speech was used. The way he wielded the power afforded to him by copyright is a great argument for copyright, not against it! If we make some conservative assumptions based on his actions and what we know of the man then it's safe to say he would allow the speech to become part of PBS documentaries but not used in corporate advertisements. Isnt it fair to believe that most of us these days would agree that his Dream speech be used in historical documentaries and other works that promote his legacy but be upset if we saw that speech used in a Nike commercial?

What I'm getting at here is that copyright itself isn't bad. It's how it is used that can be harmful but not always. Using copyright to keep MLK's legacy from being sullied is a legitimate and reasonable use for copyright. This particular case reminds us that copyright can be used for good too. If we fast forward to today and consider the King estate's attempt to make money from Dr. King's legacy we see what I'd call a gray area. Not everyone would want to see money being made in MLK's name. But far more people don't want to see the right to his words and likeness belonging to a corporation like EMI.

I want to encourage all of us to take a less extreme, more balanced perspective on this. Laws like SOPA/PIPA have backed us into a corner where we're forced to take extreme positions against extreme laws but here amongst friends, why not discuss this in a balanced way and save the extremism for fighting those with equally extreme stances on the other side? I do support copyright but I don't support it in its entirety. This story is a prime example of why the length of copyright needs to be limited. But this isn't only about copyright. We forget that other US laws in combination with copyright are what cause some of the trouble. Corporations should not be considered people. I think taking a stance that promotes complete abolishment of copyright is like chopping off your head to cure a headache.

The "I Have a Dream" speech should be in the public domain by now, there's no question about it. Copyright has hurt us in this case but while Dr. King was alive it had every opportunity to help us. It could have ensured that his speech wasn't taken advantage of. We seem to forget that copyright helps us promote freedom just as much as it can be used to restrict it. It can help ensure not just freedom as in liberty but freedom as in gratis, for free, free beer, pay zero moneys. We can't stop people from using copyright in ways we don't approve of without abolishing it but abolishing it opens another can of worms. So instead let's focus on trying to make copyright a little more sane, less biased, by scaling it back instead of ripping out our hearts to cure high cholesterol (I didn't want to use the chopping heads to cure headaches metaphor again, hopefully that wasn't too awkward a metaphor).

I think many of us object to copyright extremism, as you point out. Dr. King certainly would never have guessed that someone could be extradited from another country to face jail time for publishing a link to an unauthorized copy of his speech. Yet here we are.

I'm often downvoted to hell for comments like the one above and I'm really surprised its getting a positive response. Maybe a different subset of HN is discussing it. I don't hold an extreme position on this at all but I'm often a little afraid to speak my mind on this as I usually get a very negative response.

Also, many of us really do make a living thanks in part to copyright protections and to reiterate, I usually see and am responded to with comments saying that we shouldn't use copyright like that and should find another way. But not all works like that lend themselves well to models like paid support for free software or live performances instead of paid recordings.

Anyway, I'm relieved to see that people around here do see the validity of my argument.

King's speeches are used in corporate ads. Did you watch the embedded videos?

Likeness rights, not copyrights, are what prevent the images of public figures from being used commercially in ways that imply endorsement. If I take a photo of the President (or any other famous person, in public or in private), I own the copyright for that photo. I can sell copies of it for a profit. But it can't be used in a way that implies endorsement. I need a model release for that.

I'm not a lawyer, but I believe it would be perfectly legally possible for the King estate to release all aspects of the speech into the public domain and still prohibit the use of King's image or voice in advertisements. Or it would have been.

You write something it should be protected for life, but thats it. Anything else is unreasonable.