Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why you won’t see or hear the ‘I have a dream’ speech

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Why you won’t see or hear the ‘I have a dream’ speech

    I was there 50 years ago near the steps of the Lincoln Memorial when MLK delivered his "I have a dream speech", though at the time I didn't expect it to become as iconic as it has.

    It disappoints me now to learn that he and his heirs have milked it for profit all these years. I still admire King for his courage and his practice of non-violent political protest. He's still an American hero in my eyes, but perhaps a notch lower than before I learned of this copyright thing.




    By Josh Schiller, Published: August 27

    Josh Schiller is an associate in the New York offices of Boies Schiller & Flexner who has represented plaintiffs and defendants in copyright infringement lawsuits.

    Fifty years ago this week, the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his famous “I have a dream” speech. But in coverage of events celebrating its anniversary, the entirety of King’s address will rarely be reprinted, if at all, nor will viewers see footage of his speech delivered in full.

    A few months after King delivered the speech, he sent a copy of the address to the U.S. Copyright office and listed the remarks as a “work not reproduced for sale.” In legal terms, this is also known as an unpublished work. He subsequently sued to enjoin two publishers from distributing phonographic reproductions of the address. One of the defendants, 20th Century Fox, had filmed and broadcast all of the speeches at the March on Washington at the request of the march’s organizers. From that material, it had reproduced the phonographs that were the subject of the injunction. But a court ruled that, although King had addressed a large public audience in an unrestricted public forum, reproduction without authorization was an infringement of King’s copyright. Performance of the speech, like the performance of a song or play in a public space, did not create a general waiver of King’s right to limit reproduction under the 1909 Copyright Act.


    Since 1963, King and, posthumously, his estate have strictly enforced control over use of that speech and King’s likeness. A few years ago, the estate received more than $700,000from the nonprofit foundation that created and built the monument to King on the Mall in order to use his words and image. The only legal way to reproduce King’s work — at least until it enters the public domain in 2038 — is to pay for a licensing fee, rates for which vary. (Individuals visiting the King Center can buy a recording of the “I have a dream” speech for $20. Licenses for media outlets run into the thousands.)

    Although it has been the subject of at least two lawsuits — the King estate sued CBS and USA Today for their use of the speech, reaching undisclosed settlements — a court has never examined whether and under what circumstances the “I have a dream” speech may be used without authorization in what’s considered a “fair use” exception.

    Courts look at four factors for fair use: (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is for commercial or for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. There are no bright-line rules for fair use; each case must be examined on its facts. Courts have frequently recognized that fair use is central to the “progress of science and advancement of the useful arts” that is the principal tenet upon which copyright laws were created.

    Recent jurisprudence has focused on the first and fourth factors, looking primarily at whether the secondary work that cites the material is “transformative.” The threshold is whether the copyrighted material is used as an element, or ingredient, of a new work created for a different purpose and a different audience and whether a new aesthetic or further expression can be perceived by a reasonable observer.

    In an important case in 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit found that a biographer of the Grateful Dead had made fair use of copyrighted concert posters and tickets whose illustrations are the instantly recognizable sort that observers associate with the band and the 1960s and ’70s. The appropriated images “serve as historical artifacts graphically representing the fact of significant Grateful Dead concert events selected” by the author, the court said, and this use did not harm the first creator’s economic incentives.

    Playing a recording of King’s speech as thousands march on the Mall, as happened this past weekend, is surely the sort of non-commercial, educational and historical use that Congress and the courts have frequently and rightly protected.

    One can imagine many transformative uses of the “I have a dream” speech — from posting it in social media platforms for people to share and remark upon, to quoting the text in song lyrics or in a film, documentary or other artistic work to conjure the strivings for social equality that were the essence of King’s speech and to celebrate a sense of shared accomplishment that followed.

    As an attorney, I believe in respect for the law and observing copyright restrictions. But when it comes to observing the anniversary of such a public moment, one hopes that fair use will allow current generations to appreciate what happened 50 years ago this week and why it was such a moment in American history.

    The public benefit of access to historical artifacts such as King’s speech is undeniable. Any restriction on public access to the content of such a historical artifact should be enforced with caution. Why you won’t see or hear the ‘I have a dream’ speech - The Washington Post
    To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

  • #2
    Have seen an article titled "I have a copyrighted dream" few days ago, saying you can't find the whole speech anywhere. Meant to post it, but... :(

    There were other articles and besides the copyrights and all had one common question: "How far USA reached in racial equality?"
    No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

    To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

    Comment


    • #3
      Any citizen can access it free of charge, download and own a copy of it for fee in .pdf form . Its commercial use that is restricted.

      http://www.archives.gov/press/exhibits/dream-speech.pdf

      Comment


      • #4
        I believe the copyright claim was about Audio/Video. You wont find it on YT and I believe it was removed from Vimeo as well.

        MLK's family found a nice facade behind that claim - support civil rights orgs with collected money.
        No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

        To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Doktor View Post
          Have seen an article titled "I have a copyrighted dream" few days ago, saying you can't find the whole speech anywhere. Meant to post it, but... :(

          There were other articles and besides the copyrights and all had one common question: "How far USA reached in racial equality?"

          lol...

          dok, we've come a long way from the days of my youth. I remember separate bathrooms and water fountains labeled colored and white. My mother's Jamaican maid bringing me back home from the beach wasn't allowed to sit with me in the white section of the bus station waiting room and when she wanted an ice cream cone, she had to go around back to order from a window labelled "colored". Those were the outward signs.

          In Washington, where I grew up, colored people could not buy houses in certain parts of town (neither could Jews). Colored people had an entirely separate social world in Washington, with their own low class and high class. But where the real discrimination existed was in jobs, in the courts, in schools, in banking, in the military, in politics, even in sports... All that has changed enormously; today we see blacks who are wealthy, politically powerful, accomplished actors, sports heroes, and so forth.

          But vestiges of racial bias remain, especially in attitudes toward blacks who receive social welfare and are involved with crime. And in rural America, mainly south of the Mason-Dixon line, a lot of whites still look down on blacks. We still have racial profiling and, sorry to say, sometimes for good reason. But police are far more restrained than in the good old days.

          How far do we have to go? When BET, cable TV's Black Entertainment Network drops the word 'black", when the NAACP drops the word "colored", when there are no more "Black Entertainment Awards"--when the African-American community begins to see the irony in the fact that it too would be offended by a "White Entertainment Network" , a NAAW(hite)P, or a "White Entertainment Awards". For now we accept this seeming polarization because it does advance racial equality. Once we all realize that skin color doesn't much matter in the larger scheme of things, we'll have arrived at racial equality...and after that everyone is gonna have to get by on their own merits.
          To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by zraver View Post
            Any citizen can access it free of charge, download and own a copy of it for fee in .pdf form . Its commercial use that is restricted.

            http://www.archives.gov/press/exhibits/dream-speech.pdf
            Well of course; that's the gist of the article. Am I missing your point?
            To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

            Comment


            • #7
              But you guys got a Black President with a black dog into the erm... The White House ;)

              On a more serious note, I believe(d) USA is less racially divided then most of the countries I have visited. The latest developments (Zimmerman) and media hype washed a bit of that belief away.
              No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

              To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by JAD_333 View Post
                Well of course; that's the gist of the article. Am I missing your point?
                Yup look at the post directly above mine.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by JAD_333 View Post
                  I was there 50 years ago near the steps of the Lincoln Memorial when MLK delivered his "I have a dream speech", though at the time I didn't expect it to become as iconic as it has.

                  It disappoints me now to learn that he and his heirs have milked it for profit all these years. I still admire King for his courage and his practice of non-violent political protest. He's still an American hero in my eyes, but perhaps a notch lower than before I learned of this copyright thing.
                  Ok then by your standards, George Washington and the rest of the Founders are now downgraded on the fact they owned slaves and did nothing to free the slaves or end the slavery. I can apply your standard to every hero of yours and you will come out the worst for it.

                  King had nothing to do with the copyright thing and the copyright is an American thing. After all it is a byproduct of capitalism and during its young days, America promoted racism and slavery as part of promoting capitalism. You can't have your cake and eat it.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by JAD_333 View Post
                    lol...

                    dok, we've come a long way from the days of my youth. I remember separate bathrooms and water fountains labeled colored and white. My mother's Jamaican maid bringing me back home from the beach wasn't allowed to sit with me in the white section of the bus station waiting room and when she wanted an ice cream cone, she had to go around back to order from a window labelled "colored". Those were the outward signs.

                    In Washington, where I grew up, colored people could not buy houses in certain parts of town (neither could Jews). Colored people had an entirely separate social world in Washington, with their own low class and high class. But where the real discrimination existed was in jobs, in the courts, in schools, in banking, in the military, in politics, even in sports... All that has changed enormously; today we see blacks who are wealthy, politically powerful, accomplished actors, sports heroes, and so forth.

                    But vestiges of racial bias remain, especially in attitudes toward blacks who receive social welfare and are involved with crime. And in rural America, mainly south of the Mason-Dixon line, a lot of whites still look down on blacks. We still have racial profiling and, sorry to say, sometimes for good reason. But police are far more restrained than in the good old days.

                    How far do we have to go? When BET, cable TV's Black Entertainment Network drops the word 'black", when the NAACP drops the word "colored", when there are no more "Black Entertainment Awards"--when the African-American community begins to see the irony in the fact that it too would be offended by a "White Entertainment Network" , a NAAW(hite)P, or a "White Entertainment Awards". For now we accept this seeming polarization because it does advance racial equality. Once we all realize that skin color doesn't much matter in the larger scheme of things, we'll have arrived at racial equality...and after that everyone is gonna have to get by on their own merits.

                    Slavery was practiced for more than four centuries. Jim crows laws lasted more than a century. The Blacks and other colored only started experiencing the freedom from legal barriers. However social and economic barriers remain to this day. Don't expect the attitudes of the blacks to disappear overnight the same way as you don't expect social and economic barriers to disappear overnight. After all, there are still survivors of Jim Crow laws and mob lynchings living today. Ask the question in 50 years and then it would be appropriate to ask.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by zraver View Post
                      Yup look at the post directly above mine.
                      OK, I was not specific on A/V thing, but look a bit above - at the title ;)
                      No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

                      To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Doktor View Post
                        I believe the copyright claim was about Audio/Video. You wont find it on YT and I believe it was removed from Vimeo as well.
                        Dok, The full version is available on Youtube:

                        Cow is the only animal that not only inhales oxygen, but also exhales it.
                        -Rekha Arya, Former Minister of Animal Husbandry

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
                          Ok then by your standards, George Washington and the rest of the Founders are now downgraded on the fact they owned slaves and did nothing to free the slaves or end the slavery. I can apply your standard to every hero of yours and you will come out the worst for it.

                          King had nothing to do with the copyright thing and the copyright is an American thing. After all it is a byproduct of capitalism and during its young days, America promoted racism and slavery as part of promoting capitalism. You can't have your cake and eat it.

                          Blade, I don't understand your animosity here.

                          You have no idea what my attitude is toward Washington, etal, and my attitude toward King is positive.

                          Your facts about copyright laws in the US are wrong. The English passed a copyright law in 1710. US copyright law was largely ineffectual until the late 1800s.

                          King did copyright his speech because no one else could have.
                          To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Tronic View Post
                            Dok, The full version is available on Youtube:

                            Tronic, thanks. I have read this article a week ago and misquoted from memory.

                            "We were shocked to find that it was very difficult to find a full copy of Dr. King's speech on YouTube," said Evan Greer, a campaign manager at Fight for the Future, an Internet free-speech advocacy group. In January, the group posted the full-length speech on Vimeo in an act of "civil disobedience" coinciding with Martin Luther King Day. The video was promptly removed for violating Vimeo's terms of service, Greer said, but a version on YouTube has managed to avoid detection and remains up on the site, having accumulated more than 80,000 views.
                            According to the number of views on your link, the video either gained popularity over last week, or the article was wrong.
                            Last edited by Doktor; 29 Aug 13,, 01:52.
                            No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

                            To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              You may not want to be so quick in taking King down a notch JAD. It is hard to say what his motivation was at the time and he is no longer around to explain/defend that position.
                              Removing a single turd from the cesspool doesn't make any difference.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X