First one that comes to mind is its length. Unlike the Gettysburg Address, this isn't some short speech that could be easily recited from memory.
Secondly, there is a lot of religious imagery in the speech. I could certainly imagine people objecting to having the speech presented in a secular school.
Finally and probably most importantly, what do speeches really teach us? They aren't particularly valuable outside of context. How many of the speeches listed here (http://www.americanrhetoric.com/top100speechesall.html) are really taught in school?
No, not a chance. Even a few paragraphs would likely get them smashed, especially if they're the most interesting of the speech.
> First one that comes to mind is its length.
Have people stopped studying books or something?
> Secondly, there is a lot of religious imagery in the speech. I could certainly imagine people objecting to having the speech presented in a secular school.
> Finally and probably most importantly, what do speeches really teach us? They aren't particularly valuable outside of context.
It's quite obvious that the speech would be put in context by and used within civil rights study.
I second this point. Under the Fair Use doctrine, courts consider not just the amount of text used, but the so-called substantiality of the excerpt. In other words, even a small portion of the text may not be fair use if it's especially iconic and representative of the whole.
Teachers aren't the idealized constructs they often use to teach.
That is a completely different issue, classrooms have a specific exception (USC title 17 chapter 1 § 110 (1)) which allows "performance or display of a work by instructors or pupils in the course of face-to-face teaching activities of a nonprofit educational institution, in a classroom or similar place devoted to instruction".
The issue at hand here is that textbook publishers can't (or won't) include the speech or even major excerpts of it. And although a teacher can buy the speech DVD and play it, it's not a very good support to study the speech.
Furthermore, use of the video is much more heavily controlled by the King estate.
We still have Norton's Antologies, right? Many of those are 100% filled with copyrighted works they need to pay royalties on. And they do. And everything works out just fine.
The issue is the price not the payment per-se.
Here is even an illustrated form for children with a CD: http://amzn.com/0375858873
Showing your age? :)
Neither would I. We studied the book of Ruth in an ancient literature course in high school, along with Gilgamesh, et al. It was very interesting to read them in that context.
The effect of religion is inseparable from the course of history. It's possible to approach it from a non-theistic context.
Even now, its so surprising to me that such a pivotal part of my nation's history is such a great piece of oratory. The entire thing is just so incredibly mellifluous.
>> If schools really wanted to teach it, it would be well within fair use laws for them to show the whole thing.
> No, not a chance. Even a few paragraphs would likely get them smashed, especially if they're the most interesting of the speech.
I'm not a lawyer, but I'm fairly certain that educational programs are allowed to do whatever they want wrt. copyright as long as they can show educational value and aren't directly profiting off of reproducing the copyrighted work.
You're wrong. Educational programs have a specific exemption for performing or displaying lawfully acquired copyrighted works in a classroom setting: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/110 but that's the extent of it, they most definitely are not allowed to reproduce copyrighted work whether profiting of it or not.
The copyrighted works we were shown and given access to in class were supplements to the textbooks we were using.
I am one such. In fact, I heard it just the other day. It starts at 46:04 of http://www.democracynow.org/2013/8/28/50_years_after_march_o... .
Democracy Now also has lengthy excerpts from MLK's "Beyond Vietnam" speech and his "I Have Been to the Mountain Top" (See http://www.democracynow.org/2012/1/16/special_dr_martin_luth... ) and likely more speeches if you search the archives.
(It may be that since a news show isn't a documentary, it is one of the exceptions implied in 'most circumstances.')
I agree with you: the reason why 'ask the people sitting near you' works is likely more because - as you say - most people don't listen to speeches or watch documentaries with speeches in them.
I disagree with your religious imagery observation somewhat, because that speech doesn't include much in the way of religious imagery which needs to be explained. Looking through the copy at http://www.archives.gov/press/exhibits/dream-speech.pdf , I see:
- references to the Gettysburg Address ("Five score years ago .. this hallowed spot")
- religious references ("captivity" can refer to the Babylonian captivity; "The whirlwinds of revolt" sounds like a reference to a verse from Hosea; "every valley shall be exalted ... all flesh shall see it together" is Isaiah 40:4-5.)
- Shakespeare ("This sweltering summer of the Negro's legitimate discontent" is a reference to Richard III)
- perhaps Newton? ("meeting physical force with soul force" sound like "equal and opposite force")
- The Declaration of Independence ("We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal")
- the 1831 song "My Country 'Tis of Thee" (some 17 lines are a reference to the song)
This doesn't sound like any more use of religious imagery than other texts often taught in school. "To Kill a Mockingbird", for example, starts with a Methodist fleeing religious intolerance in England, and has an scene where the white children Scout and Jem go to Calpurnia's black church for a Sunday service.
It was such a remarkably egregious thing, I was amazed that more people weren't up in arms about it.
At my (public) high school (10ish years ago), we had "character education", and one of the "character words" we had (there was a new one each month) was "respect for the Creator", which is:
A) Actually four words.
B) Insanely, crazy religious.
I assure you that the religious angle is not why this is not presented in full in schools.
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
I wonder how they deal with that religious imagery. Or they neglect to mention that unimportant document altogether?
I can understand when people object to school propagandizing religion or requiring some religious rites or observances from non-religious people. But completely removing a part of history because religion is mentioned there or certain figure was, in fact, a religious man? That's just insane, and anti-religious bigot would be as bad as a religious one.
You are probably not learning it for recital to prove how clever you are, you are presumably reading it for study and analysis.
"Secondly, there is a lot of religious imagery in the speech. I could certainly imagine people objecting to having the speech presented in a secular school."
On what grounds? On that basis you couldn't have US school textbooks with translations of the letters of Christopher Columbus in them -
"In conclusion, to speak only of what has been accomplished on this voyage, which was so hasty, their Highnesses can see that I will give them as much gold as they may need, if their Highnesses will render me very slight assistance; presently, I will give them spices and cotton, as much as their Highnesses shall command… and slaves, as many as they shall order, and who will be from the idolaters. I believe also that I have found rhubarb and cinnamon, and I shall find a thousand other things of value, which the people whom I have left there will have discovered…
This is enough. And thus the eternal God, Our Lord, gives to all those who walk in His way triumph over things which appear to be impossible, and this was notably one. For, although men have talked or have written of these lands, all was conjectural, without ocular evidence. ... So that, since Our Redeemer has given the victory to our most illustrious King and Queen, and to their renowned kingdoms, in so great a matter, for this all Christendom ought to feel delight and make great feasts and give solemn thanks to the Holy Trinity, with many solemn prayers for the great exaltation which they shall have in the turning of so many peoples to our holy faith, and afterwards for the temporal benefits, because not only Spain but all Christendom will have hence refreshment and gain."
- The conclusion to his letter to King Ferdinand of Spain.
"Finally and probably most importantly, what do speeches really teach us? They aren't particularly valuable outside of context."
What someone in the past said. Is part of learning about stuff, which is the context.
I don't know what your point is, most school textbooks don't include Colombus' letters either. And it's not that history textbooks can't include religious content but the more religious content there is the less likely you're going to see it in a secular textbook, grandparent is precisely right.
Besides I would have thought that a secular school would be one where you would see the widest range of religious content when studying history, as it would be less likely to be biased in favour of any religion in particular.
edit - the following is from a US lesson plan on Christopher Columbus for history teachers in public schools;
"In this unit, students will work with primary source documents written by Christopher Columbus around the time of his voyage to the New World, and with secondary source documents written at a later date. They also have a chance to write their own secondary source material in this unit. Using both primary and secondary source documents within a single unit gives students an opportunity to see the difference between these two types of documents. You may wish to have students work alone or in small groups to read and interpret these documents. Groups could be based on areas of interest (especially for analyzing the scholarly documents), or could allow students with stronger reading skills to help others work through the source documents."
"The desire to bring Christianity to native peoples was essential to European exploration. It is a topic that cannot be ignored in discussions of Columbus"
It's a little off-topic and a little cynical, but I think the larger issue here is that we've watered our teaching of history (and most things) down to soundbites and simple explanations. What we learned about Columbus, MLK, and all the founding fathers were stripped of everything controversial to create flawless heroes with views no PTA member would find offensive.
How many of the influential speeches in history have you read? I think Time's list is a good starting place. These were all inspiring, influential, and are all readily available for free:
If you have read even half of these, maybe then I'll buy the copyright argument.
Unfortunately, textbook are still a/the standard source of information in most public schools. Yes, this raises separate questions about the way that we structure our education system, but that's not the issue at hand.
The speech is readily found by those willing to go out of their way to look for it, but it is not included in most textbooks, because those publishers would then have to pay royalties to the King estate (and indirectly pass those costs along to the schools).
The video is much harder to find (legally, not illegally!), because the King estate controls it much more tightly.
Your points are still very valid, but something as significant as this should never have been copyright-able from day one.
Only one thing, is impossible for god: to find any sense in any copyright law on the planet. ~ Mark Twain
Eh, have you talked a teenager lately? I believe the standard source of information in public schools is a smartphone.
Exactly, or at least to neat narratives that are very much retrospectively constructed and do not really give a realistic picture of the messiness of how the events felt to those who were living through them. I think reading actual speeches, or documents written at the time gives a very complementary view to the neat narratives and insight into the value systems that people had at the time. Of course this is precisely the reason why reading them demands very much of the reader.
In general, I think, one should read more original works, and less later histories describing said works. It is more demanding, but also more satisfying.
Svante Myrick makes this point pretty succinctly in this video . He points out that all most people know about our history of slavery is "slavery, Abraham Lincoln, freedom". Or "blacks couldn't vote, MLK, blacks could vote". It's a ridiculously shallow comprehension of history.
"Inconsistent with the preferred simple narrative" is probably more accurate than "controversial" here.
Incidentally, please do take the 17 minutes to watch this speech (and perhaps follow along with yread's transcript link). It really is one of the greatest speeches ever given.
In the case of the text, it is possible to find copies online (for, via the National Archives), but redistribution in other printed works (namely, textbooks) is problematic.
As for the video, the King estate controls that very, very tightly.
That said, this also isn't a convincing argument for the abolition of copyright either. I don't know if that was the point though. What this does show is how a copyright can serve the opposite of its intended purpose and hurt society. But for every case like the King speech there are plenty more that are examples of its benefit.
It's disappointing that we do not have free and open access to the I Have a Dream speech but its not a good argument against copyright. Copyright is still an issue that boils down to its use and has to be considered on a case by case basis. I don't think it ever has been all good or all bad and overlooking the vast sea of nuance there doesn't help proponents or opponents of it.
How does extending copyright to 70 years after his death benefit our culture or the dead author? Do you honestly think there is even a single song or piece of literature that was not written because the author was concerned about his grandchildren retaining copyright control over his idea?
I appreciate that you're trying to take a balanced view, but you're missing the point that the laws have extended copyright to such absurd levels that they now damaging the cultural progress they are supposed to promote.
If you don't think this is a real issue, I suggest you read these two other examples of copyright destroying our cultural heritage.
You are being conservative. Let's try to visualize a hypothetical example...
Age 25 children are born.
Age 40 write work of art.
Age 50 grand children are born.
Age 75 great grand children are born.
Age 80 dies.
100 years after being born. Great great grand children are born.
125 years after being born. Great great great grand children are born.
150 years after being born. Great great great great grand children are born. Copyright runs out.
King enforced the copyright and sold records of his speeches. He knew exactly what he was doing.
I don't know where the writer on the article got the idea that MLK would have agreed with the writer's current legal opinions.
Easy to say, but where is the proof? Bear in mind the history of copyright:
Perhaps the question should be: Would Dr. King have kept it locked up by copyright for more than 50 years?
Actually, my question is this "SHOULD this speech (and other works) be kept locked up by copyright for more than 50 years?"
> Actually, my question is this "SHOULD this speech (and other works) be kept locked up by copyright for more than 50 years?"
Agreed, on both counts.
Also, MLK's comments on the Vietnam War were remarkably prescient, and apply just fine to our terrible wars today.
If you still believe that the USG is not, in places and at times, terribly evil and corrupt, you probably don't know about the USG's efforts to kill MLK: http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/31/mlk.fbi.conspiracy/
Yet another example of our government hating our freedoms.... Oh wait, I thought those were the terrorists....
Here, read up on the Panthers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Panther_Party
From the Wikipedia:
Federal Bureau of Investigation Director J. Edgar Hoover called the party "the greatest threat to the internal security of the country," and he supervised an extensive program (COINTELPRO) of surveillance, infiltration, perjury, police harassment and many other tactics designed to undermine Panther leadership, incriminate party members and drain the organization of resources and manpower. Through these tactics, Hoover hoped to diminish the Party's threat to the general power structure of the U.S., or even maintain its influence as a strong undercurrent. Angela Davis, Ward Churchill, and others have alleged that federal, state and local law enforcement officials went to great lengths to discredit and destroy the organization, including assassination. Black Panther Party membership reached a peak of 10,000 by early 1969, then suffered a series of contractions due to legal troubles, incarcerations, internal splits, expulsions and defections. Popular support for the Party declined further after reports appeared detailing the group's involvement in illegal activities such as drug dealing and extortion schemes directed against Oakland merchants. By 1972 most Panther activity centered on the national headquarters and a school in Oakland, where the party continued to influence local politics. Party contractions continued throughout the 1970s; by 1980 the Black Panther Party comprised just 27 members.
For all the good you do can be wiped out in one instant by a single bad.
It takes a very biased viewpoint to blame the Black Panthers for being violent when they only arose after decades of police brutality and lynchings and KKK terrorism. It's more likely that the threat of armed and organized black militia forced the white population to fold. King just gave whites an out--let's pretend we're going along with the nonviolent civil rights movement rather than admit we're terrified of all the black people who are giving up on the civil rights movement and buying rifles. So Malcolm X and the Black Panthers are marginalized and demonized to this day while King is venerated.
Based in California. I'm not saying that there wasn't oppression in California but if you are going to fight the war wouldn't you got to the front lines? MLK sure did.
So Malcolm X and the Black Panthers are marginalized and demonized to this day while King is venerated.
There are many ways to accomplish the same goal. How the history is remembered is decided by those who were the most successful in their pursuit. It's hard to deny that white folks - the ones who's support was needed to get the CRA passed - were not more interested in MLK's message than the Black Panthers and Malcom X.
The Black Panthers drove around with guns shouting legal advice to blacks who were pulled over by the notoriously racist Oakland PD. Is that not "on the front lines" enough for you? Can't people fight racism in their own communities without having to move to the South--which, incidentally, King never did, he was born there?
> There are many ways to accomplish the same goal. How the history is remembered is decided by those who were the most successful in their pursuit.
Not true. History is remembered by what the majority of people choose to believe, not by what actually happened. This is especially true when it comes to assigning credit or blame.
> It's hard to deny that white folks - the ones who's support was needed to get the CRA passed - were not more interested in MLK's message than the Black Panthers and Malcom X.
Of course white folks were more interested in the nonviolent civil rights movement than in black nationalism. But if they weren't scared as hell of the black nationalists, they wouldn't have given enough of a shit to care about anyone seeking to end the oppression of black people. Up until then, white folks were most of all interested in continuing to oppress black folks! That's what I mean when I say MLK gave white folks an out. He made it look respectable and noble for them to fold in the face of a black population that was increasingly refusing to accept being oppressed any longer, because he helped them uphold the illusion that nonviolent, democratic change was still possible. And this illusion is the history that we teach our children.
"...groups of armed Panthers would drive around following police cars. When the police stopped a black person, the Panthers would stand off to the side and shout out legal advice."
The militarism makes an easy excuse for a crackdown. If you think scaring the shit out of people, threatening their very existence with violence, is a good way to affect change, I think you are very uninformed. Find me one example where that worked.
Hell, just look at this country's own history: KKK terrorism was tremendously effective in preventing a civil rights movement from even existing for close to a century.
Cops murder black civilians to this day. If Nelson Mandela is a hero for bombing government buildings and killing government officials to resist apartheid in Africa, why are the Black Panthers villains for killing cops to resist apartheid in America?
Fear is a tremendous weapon if people can save face by pretending they never caved to it. Without the fear of more militant black nationalist groups, whites would have never given King the time of day.
Uh what!? Nonviolent protestors and activists faced tremendous amounts of violence for their activity in the civil rights movement, including being murdered. Freedom riders being attacked and having their buses attacked and burned, bombing of churches, lynch mobs, being assaulted at sit ins, etc.
> MLK and his movement are remembered for boycotts and protest leading to the Civil Rights Act. The Black Panthers are remembered as being violent and divisive.
Black Panthers were a group that was systematically attacked and dismantled by state and federal police. Further, black panthers are remembered for a variety of things, like school breakfast/lunch programs, providing community safety when the police were aggressors, and tons of political discourse, among other things.
> For all the good you do can be wiped out in one instant by a single bad.
Making villains of the Black Panther Party in media and gov't circles is heavily tied to the system racism that spurred the creation of the BPP. Trying to blame all black people for the behavior of the BPP or claiming that the BPP somehow set black people back is a hugely racist claim.
And, yes, nonviolent protesters can and do face a very large amount of violence. But being violent back tends to solve nothing and MLK knew that. He also knew that with enough favorable support he could affect change.
Further, black panthers are remembered for a variety of things, like school breakfast/lunch programs, providing community safety when the police were aggressors, and tons of political discourse, among other things.
I think you'd be able to find positives with a lot of fringe groups that take aggressive stances on issues. Sea Sheppard and Earth First are two environmental groups that have or continue to take this approach. But the fact remains that there is a lot of public backlash against these groups because of their tactics, even though you or I may agree on them.
> The exact type of rhetoric from a Black Panther that doesn't help his cause one iota. This is why MLK gets a national holiday and Carmichael is a footnote.
BPP and MLK are fundamentally about the advancement of black people from being considered 2nd class and subhuman. Of this cause you say BPP do not help their cause because of use of violence, this is a way of saying that the actions of BPP and the behavior of its members, who are predominantly black, are responsible for keeping their status in society from not improving. The realty is racism in the US has a long and violent history, that racism is what keeps black people and communities from improving their lives and status. Resistance to that violence is NOT responsible.
> And, yes, nonviolent protesters can and do face a very large amount of violence. But being violent back tends to solve nothing and MLK knew that. He also knew that with enough favorable support he could affect change.
That is true, but MLK was also keenly aware of the need for self defense and that not all forms of violence are unjustified. Obviously this is a big split of ideology between MLK and BPP, but both MLK and BPP affected some kinds of change.
There are many statues to armed freedom fighters around India and Indian Railways famously have special counters provided as a privilege for "Senior Citizens, Disabled, MLAs and Freedom Fighters".
Subhash Chandra Bose who led the Indian National Army against the British and with Japanese support is still regarded as a hero by many. I'm sure someone with better knowledge than I can provide other examples of how the armed struggle was key and is still regarded as such within India.
Similarly there is evidence from Northern Ireland that it was the increasing violence - especially when it spread to the mainland - that led the British to negotiate with the Republicans.
I aspire to pacifism by the way. I'm just not sure if every historical example can bend to support it.
India's resistance to British imperialism is similar to the US response to British imperialism. Sometimes armed resistance is necessary but when done within the official context of an army, with rules of engagement and hierarchy, it can be legitimized.
However, when fringe militant resistance that is the definition of terrorism is used, it tends to have the opposite affect.
The Black Panthers weren't doing themselves any favors within the establishment by being so militant. LBJ wouldn't have spent 5 minutes bowing to their demands but had no choice politically to negotiate with a preacher leading a peaceful, rights-driven resistance.
What you have to understand is that politically the Democrats had full control of the southern states up until the Civil Rights Act. After LBJ (a Texas, southern Democrat) got the CRA passed the entirety of the southern Democrats became Republicans - where those same states are to this day. It was done at a huge cost to LBJ and the Democrats, but it was the right choice.
When you and your communities existence is under direct violent threat, you are under no obligation to be nice and to wait for the persons harming you to play nice. Even after the CRA, racism and violence, both individual and systemic, persists and is a problem of US society.
-- Stokely Carmichael
Obviously he wasn't correct otherwise MLK would've been unsuccessful.
At any rate, MLK didn't exist in a vacuum. It is quite possible that the movement, if it only consisted of people that aligned with MLK, wouldn't have been as successful?
As was Ghandi.
MLK being assassinated doesn't doesn't change the fact that his focus on non-violence was more successful than the contrary position taken by the Black Panthers.
I tend to believe that things happen because they must. It was undeniable that the CRA was going to happen but without strong support from all over the nation due to the tempered approach espoused by MLK, who knows when it would've been realized.
We all want to change the world / But when you talk about destruction /Don't you know that you can count me out
But when you want money / For people with minds that hate / All I can tell is brother you have to wait
Jay-Z is rich now too - can he not have opinions on politics/race/religion or do you also dismiss him as a misogynist black man who had all the money and privilege in the world?
> Jay-Z is rich now too - can he not have opinions on politics/race/religion or do you also dismiss him as a misogynist black man who had all the money and privilege in the world?
I don't know why you bring up Jay-Z, I never said that any musician can't have an opinion. But it is easy to be about non-violence when you are not yourself the primary target of systemic, state sponsored violence.
Who exactly feels the full brunt of society's effects? This is starting to feel like a no true scotsman argument. I'm betting you can disqualify almost anyone from feeling the full effects.
Get off your high horse.
So yes, royalties go to the King Center, which at least in part, go to his children, including MLK III.
Many know "Four score and seven years ago", but how many know "we can not dedicate, we can not consecrate, we can not hallow this ground"?
I think this says more about our "sound-bite" culture than how protective the family is of the audio.
Your counter-argument was about as valid as saying "How many people have needed freedom?"
In any case, your counter-argument seems unrelated to the OP's post... Whether or not people would read or listen to the entire speech, the OP was arguing that copyright laws are impeding the creation of new content, the consumption of existing, important content and society's understanding of itself.
>I think this says more about our "sound-bite" culture than
>how protective the family is of the audio.
Ironically, your comment represents the 'sound-bite' culture quite effectively.
Of course, probably only about 10% of us really understood what he meant by that phrase you quoted, but hey, at least the school system tried.
thank god for those who don't respect overzealous copyright holders.
We need more Huey P. Newton and Malcolm X for the issues of today (regulatory capture and the shredded constitution, political campaign finance, income/opportunity inequality being the main meta-issues), I think, rather than more MLK.
Perhaps a more tragic recognition of reality took place when it became clear to me that the war was doing far more than devastating the hopes of the poor at home. It was sending their sons and their brothers and their husbands to fight and to die in extraordinarily high proportions relative to the rest of the population. We were taking the black young men who had been crippled by our society and sending them eight thousand miles away to guarantee liberties in Southeast Asia which they had not found in southwest Georgia and East Harlem.
I can't see 50-80 year old non-technical voters caring about key escrow or mandatory data retention, even though it's an infringement of 1A/2A/4A/5A/6A/14A/+.
(It's not violence per se, it's extremism. RMS is a copyright extremist, and that makes things easier for people like Lessig I think. Gilmore is a fly-without-papers extremist, etc.)
That's why I like you rdl; munitions are munitions.
At the end of the day, having ceded the monopoly of violence to the government, it becomes very difficult to merely ask nicely to have your freedoms restored. More Malcom X's would probably have helped the Occupy movement, least of all because the "We are oppressed, we're starting to fight back" is a narrative familiar enough to the American psyche.
We don't need that now (and it would be hopeless vs. modern police/military unless you had an issue, like 2A, supported by most of the individuals in police/military, combined with a constitutional justification like an unambiguously unconstitutional move by one branch of government vs. the others, like a hypothetical future President closing the Supreme Court), but a similarly forceful threat, like removing $100b/yr of business from the US or a mass expatriation, could probably work.
That's true. I should have cut the last paragraph before posting, but now that it's out there and people have read it, I think it's best to let it stand.
It was initially a defensive copyright by the King, Jr. estate. Fox Records started selling records of the speech in 1968 . And, CBS was rebroadcasting the speech for commercial purposes . Only later did his family more strictly control the work and likeness of King, Jr. Otherwise, we might have seen the Dr. King, Jr. version of the Obama-hitler posters of 2008, or his face on a box of children's cereal.
And as for the "MLK-Hitler poster" argument, that would be fair use and wouldn't be stopped by copyright.
Selling MLK-Hitler posters would not count as fair use. That was the point I was making.
1) Transformative factor: To say that an MLK-Hitler poster "adds new expression or meaning" to the original is to make the understatement of the year. I may not like the new aesthetics, but they are certainly there. Furthermore, the posters are powerful imagery (value is added) to those who hate MLK.
2) Amount: The posters only excerpt a single frame of a much longer video.
3) Nature of original: The video is not abstract art... it documents a historically- and culturally-significant event. This gives poster-makers broad latitude to do as they please.
4) Effect on market for original: Any argument that an MLK-Hitler poster is a substitute for video of the original speech is a non-starter and doesn't pass the giggle test. You would have to argue second-order effects, (that the posters ruin MLK's image, and therefore reduce demand for all things MLK) and courts haven't really gone for that (if they did, you couldn't publish an unfavorable movie review that showed a still from the movie). If anything, it probably inspires people to try to find the original and pay the (outrageous) licensing fees.
So an MLK-Hitler poster passes the fair-use test on every single count.
As for Trademark... what is the trademark here, and how would anyone be confused by an MLK-Hitler poster? I don't think anyone is going to buy an MLK-Hitler poster thinking that they are getting MLK-brand doughnuts (or even MLK-Hitler brand doughnuts).
I think those are very different things.
Copyright law isn't preventing the material from being taught. Teachers don't actually care about such restrictions. They ignore them and teach it anyway.
No, but textbook publishers do. The current state of affairs means that very few textbooks include the speech, because textbooks are sold commercially.
Agreed, teachers are notorious for ignoring copyright (I've seen them photograph entire books for us in teaching), but that's a separate matter. IMHO, the solution to broken uses of copyright isn't to say, "let's just ignore it", even if that does have a desirable effect.
For what it's worth, when MLK noticed he was failing to engage the audience, he went off-script and improvised a large portion of the speech.
I know copyright and such laws have their place, but when it comes down to it, this estate is just greedy above all else.
(Of course, this may be something that has yet to be tested in court, so Don't Try This At Home unless you have the money for a large lawsuit.)
Frankly, I can't imagine a better way to reward Dr. King, and his family, for such an amazing event and turning point in our history.
It's not like the money is going to AT&T or Microsoft.
We studied this speech in my high school, as well as speeches by FDR and John F. Kennedy (sidenote: why are all great public speakers referred to by the initials that make up their name? MLK, FDR, JFK, etc.). We studied the speech to learn more about rhetoric and how an orator can twist common words into powerful devices for convincing you to believe in their ideas.
Oh and by the way? we read it too. This was to emphasize how much more powerful the speech is when SPOKEN rather than read. It's really not that fun to read, the sentences are so repetitive, short and simple that it's hard to believe an educated man wrote them, but that is of course the purpose of such speeches...you speak them in such a way that the simple becomes complex and weak words become powerful.
You can get the ebook from the google play store. From the free sample it seems like they got permission to reproduce copyrigth material from The Estate of Dr Martin Luther King, Jr.
Is my experience really that unusual?
I am curious how old you are if you saw a Youtube video in your class in elementary school.
""I Have a Dream: Writings and Speeches That Changed the World," by Martin Luther King, Jr., is a fine collection of texts by this important figure. The book has been edited by James M. Washington. Coming in at less than 300 pages, this is a concise but meaty book.
Washington includes King's most important texts: the "Letter from Birmingham Jail"; the "I Have a Dream" speech; his Nobel Prize acceptance speech; "My Trip to the Land of Gandhi"; "A Time to Break Silence," his 1967 speech criticizing the United States war in Vietnam, and more. These writings and speeches cover King's great themes: nonviolent resistance, the African-American civil rights movement, etc."
My own little children ... shall be judged not by the color of their skin
My four small children ... shall not be judged by ...
Edit: oh yes - anyone wanting to improve their accent before the next YC interviews could do a lot lot worse than have MLK playing through their headphones each day. Learn from the very best.
I have a dream. I dreamed with some bad guys writting with a felt-tip the complete speech in several walls in your cities, in a corner next of your schools. Ten point size is okay much more should be excessive.
Then the good people; lawyers and copyright holders came to delete the illegal speechs from the walls, restoring the law and the order.
This could be and extremely interesting social experiment, maybe even a piece of performance art.
If there is a "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day", a "Mother's Day, a "World Sparrow day" and a day to play with rubber bats, candies and pumpkins; why not a "Everybody writes a famous speech day that changes our country for good it the corner of his/her street, in a paper airplane or in a ballon"?
Could make a really beautiful local holiday...
Unfortunately, the same can be said about textbook publishers, and most of them don't pay for it.
Worse, the video is much more heavily controlled by the King estate than the printed text.
Irrespective of this, it reduces the number of textbooks that can publish the text of the speech to (almost) zero, since most publishers can't afford it.
This is a value judgement and therefore subjective, but I don't believe it's worth it.
Once you get into the 70s or 80s, it's not just the textbook authors who think that way but also most of the teachers.
We watched it on a large TV set that they rolled in on a cart. Granted I was in a 99% white school at the time, but the school was not for the rich - however they bought the necessary footage (I assume now, no idea).
I distinctly remember Dr. King's voice, I will not forget it.
Our textbook had the whole thing printed, but I also found it online at the time. Also downloaded the audio, though I'm not sure where from, since YouTube wasn't around then.
The main casualty of the copyright status is that textbooks cannot reproduce it freely.
Actually scratch that, it's not a prediction. It would be smart, but it probably won't happen.
His Massey Lectures are also publicly available:
Is the author (and submitter, who's the same person) working off a false premise?
A large portion of this was affected by a lawsuit from 1999, so keep that in mind
Also, students today are not prevented from reading the speech; however, the teacher must find a copy online and print it out and distribute it to the students - the point is that most textbooks will not be able to publish/include it.
As for the video recording, yes that's been much more heavily restricted.
I'm sure the translation is copyrighted under German law.
>"I am happy to join with you today..."
If you are a Michael Jackson fan this was included on the song History.
There is some effort to make it public (as it should be):
What a stupid post.
The real stupidity are our laws extending copyright to 70 years after death, so backwards that many people just chose to ignore them.