
Copyright King: Why the "I Have a Dream" Speech Still Isn't Free - ck2
http://motherboard.vice.com/2012/1/16/copyright-king-why-the-i-have-a-dream-speech-still-isn-t-free
======
spodek
The article mostly covers the relevant law and how the copyright ownership has
evolved.

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?

~~~
jonnathanson
FWIW, King's speech contains close to 40% repurposed or borrowed material
(from the Declaration of Independence, the song "My Country 'Tis of Thee,"
cribs from previous speeches by Archibald Carey, etc.). I say this not to
diminish the accomplishment, triumph, or historical significance of Dr. King's
famous speech, but rather, to raise the point that it's a very nuanced
copyright matter.

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."

~~~
moldbug
Ironically, MLK was not the actual author of the "Dream" speech, which was
written by King's regular speechwriters, Stanley Levison and Clarence B.
Jones.([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Have_a_Dream#Speech_title_and...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Have_a_Dream#Speech_title_and_the_writing_process)).

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...

~~~
sambeau
You have just posted exactly what I was wanting to post although you probably
said it clearer than I would have.

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?

~~~
adestefan
Most popular music is not written by the person who performed it. Even
prolific singer/songwriters have performed works that were written by other
people that have gone on to become smash hits.

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.

~~~
CWuestefeld
_Most popular music is not written by the person who performed it._

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.

~~~
adestefan
It does vary, but I didn't want to pigeon hole pop. Mostly because it happens
in a lot of other genres such as country/wester and even folk. It also occurs
more in places such as Nashville, Austin and Memphis where there is a strong
songwriting tradition.

------
brudgers
The author's argument appears to be that Dr. King's speech is too important to
be protected by copyright. The author provides very little to support this
position other than an appeal to emotion.

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>

~~~
brown9-2
I don't get it - what facts and details can someone supply to make the
argument that this speech is very important to the public and to history?

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

~~~
monochromatic
Nobody's disputing that it's important to the public and to history. The point
of contention is whether that implies that it should be un-copyrightable. I'm
with brudgers--nothing in this article gives any justification for that
proposition.

~~~
Silhouette
I think you're both begging the implied question: why _should_ this work be
protected?

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.

~~~
monochromatic
Why should this work be protected? Protection is the default for copyrightable
works. The onus is on the author here to show why this situation is different
from the normal one, different enough to justify changing the rules. As for
your specific questions...

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.

~~~
Silhouette
> Why should this work be protected? Protection is the default for
> copyrightable works.

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.

~~~
monochromatic
I agree with pretty much everything you just said, except that I'm not sure
about the ability to sell and license copyrights being "modern legal
inventions." I haven't done any research into this, so I'm just going off my
gut feeling here... but IP isn't much use without the ability to grant
licenses. A license is just saying "I agree not to sue you for doing X." My
guess is that licensing has been around for a seriously long time.

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.

~~~
Silhouette
Just to be clear, when talking about selling or licensing copyrights, I'm
really talking about deals where someone other than the original artist has
either permanent or temporary control of those rights.

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.

------
godDLL
I think this is the first time I see YouTube embeds used this way. The article
contains several of them -- non-functional and displaying a "removed due to
_third party_ copyright claim" message -- all to drive the article's point.

~~~
VMG
I can still see the alcatel ad in germany

~~~
burgerbrain
"Alcatel aired an ad with an excerpt of “I Have a Dream,” which it _licensed
from the King family for an undisclosed sum_."

They made money off of that one.

------
Lagged2Death
I wonder what legal contortions were necessary to argue that "the speech was a
performance distributed to the news media and not the public." That's some of
the purest baloney I've ever heard. If giving a speech to a fifth of a million
people on the steps of one of the most famous public monuments in the world,
in one of the most famous public spaces in the world, doesn't count as
"public," what possibly could?

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).

------
Create
"I Have A Dream" is nothing compared to the Riverside speech, and its
anniversary.

[https://www.democracynow.org/2008/1/21/dr_martin_luther_king...](https://www.democracynow.org/2008/1/21/dr_martin_luther_king_jr_1929)

~~~
ck2
_Time magazine called the speech "demagogic slander that sounded like a script
for Radio Hanoi,"_

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.

~~~
spodek
Media today always talk about King's work on civil rights and equality work
and show "I Have A Dream" footage and talk about his assassination.

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.

------
brudgers
Dr. King was not a public official and was not giving testimony. His speech is
no more a candidate for the public domain than the Beach Boys' Fourth of July,
1980 rendition of _Barbara Ann_ on the National Mall is.

~~~
ck2
A reasonable argument. But 2038? What about taking the artists original
intentions and desires in mind?

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

~~~
sp332
"Intentions" don't mean much if they're not in writing. MLK could have put the
speech under a freer license if he wanted to.

~~~
thesteamboat
What freer licenses existed in 1963?

~~~
icebraining
Why would it have to already exist? Anyone can create a license. Pretty sure
some lawyer would've done it for free.

~~~
burgerbrain
Just about anybody in recorded history could have created the phonograph. It's
a dead simple concept, even the Mesopotamians probably could have managed it,
all you need is a needle (probably could be bone), something to scratch lines
into with it (wax for instance, maybe the clay they used for tablets), and
some sort of diaphragm (leather should work nicely). Just imagine, we could
have voice recordings of Alexander the Great, or Gautama Buddha.... that would
be fucking wild.

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_.

~~~
sp332
Rights were already being sold for printing, delivering, and televising
speeches. It would not have been a new idea to license those rights.

~~~
burgerbrain
The idea is licensing designed to keep a work free, _not_ licensing designed
to restrict. Even if that idea existed at the time, it was _not_ prominent,
evidenced by the lack of stock licenses to do so at the time.

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

------
ck2
I slightly corrected the title as Sony bought part of the EMI Group, not the
other way around.

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

~~~
brudgers
Unsurprisingly, my public library has a copy. For twenty bucks you can donate
a copy to yours.

~~~
ck2
It's also on Netflix but not Instant Watch

[http://movies.netflix.com/Movie/Martin-Luther-King-Jr-I-
Have...](http://movies.netflix.com/Movie/Martin-Luther-King-Jr-I-Have-a-
Dream/70031442)

------
giardini
That's alright. No one wants to hear the whole speech anyway - too boring and
dated.

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.

------
tpatke
Makes me wonder how may of Apple's Think Different personalities were paid for
their "endorsement".

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

~~~
snowwrestler
I would bet a lot of money that every single one of those photos and video
clips was properly licensed by Apple. It's not even that complicated a
commercial for that sort of thing--compare to the first iPhone ad, which
probably had 2-3 times as many copyrighted clips:

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

~~~
e28eta
I just finished reading the Jobs biography, and I believe you're correct.
Isaacson writes about Steve personally calling the editor in chief of Time Inc
to get the famous picture of Gandhi which isn't available for commercial use,
and meeting with Yoko Ono to get the pic of Lennon.

------
rthomas6
Does this mean that one could be convicted of a felony under SOPA/PIPA if they
posted a video of the speech online?

------
twodayslate
How can you copyright that? If it is, it should be under creative commons.

~~~
sp332
In the USA (and most other jurisdictions, really) as soon as you write it
down, you have the copyright on it. You also have some control over
"derivative works" including any copies of the "performance" of the speech. In
music, for example, you would need to pay royalties to the songwriter for
publicly playing a recording of their song, no matter who actually sang the
song.

~~~
ck2
I'm kind of surprised congress didn't try to retroactively copyright the
Declaration of Independence and Gettysburg Address and force textbook
publishers to pay royalties.

~~~
sp332
Those were works made by the government, so they're automatically in the
public domain. I don't see why you're against Mr. King having the copyright on
the speech he wrote and gave?

~~~
ck2
MLK said those words to move governments and their people, to everyone and
anyone that would listen.

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

~~~
anamax
With copyright, he/his heirs get to decide how it can be used, such as selling
Coke. (They didn't have to decide "sell Coke".)

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

And the copyright law language embodying that principle is?

~~~
henrikschroder
It doesn't exist in copyright law, but may be it should? If enough people
think it should be, we can write it down and make it law.

~~~
anamax
I was unclear. I wasn't asking for an existing law that implements your idea.
I was asking for language that does.

> 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.)

------
billpatrianakos
This is interesting on a number of levels. I'm part of the minority around
here that is in favor of copyright but don't write me off as a knee-jerk
reaction to my stance.

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).

~~~
sehugg
I don't think the majority here advocates abolishing copyright (although a
poll would clear that up). Many of us make their living due in part to
copyright protections, nor do I think a sane person would think it could be
abolished unless society changes radically.

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.

~~~
billpatrianakos
I think the majority here does favor copyright abolishment. I would hope I'm
wrong but whenever the the subject of copyright comes up the vast majority of
the comments talk about how we need to get rid of it, how all works should be
free and in the public domain, etc. Especially when you bring money into the
discussion I've seen everyone say that copyright is no longer necessary or
helpful and we all need to find a way to make a living without it implying
that creators should have no right to restrict how their works are used or
distributed. I'm so glad this article was posted because it shows us the
benefits of copyright.

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.

