Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Martin Luther King Jr's Children In Court Over MLK IP

Soulskill posted about a year ago | from the i-have-a-sad-depressing-dream dept.

The Almighty Buck 344

cervesaebraciator writes "Slashdot has reported before about the copyright nightmare of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s 'I Have a Dream' Speech. Now, questions of intellectual property and the legacy of Dr. King have caused his children to go to court. The estate, run by King's sons, claims the rights to the intellectual property and memorabilia of Dr. King as assets. Accordingly, it has filed suit against the non-profit Martin Luther King Jr. Center for Nonviolent Change, run by King's daughter, for plans to continue using King memorabilia once a royalty-free licensing agreement expires, (which the estate says will be in September). As is the case with increasing frequency, one is left to wonder about the implications intellectual property claims have for free speech when they can be applied to so public a figure as Dr. King."

cancel ×

344 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

End of a Dream (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44759161)

MLK's legacy capitalizing on MLK's legacy.

Go for it kids!

Re:End of a Dream (1)

ackthpt (218170) | about a year ago | (#44759195)

MLK's legacy capitalizing on MLK's legacy.

Go for it kids!

Maybe they should just sell the whole kit and caboodle to Disney and watch it really get run into the ground.

Does anyone else ever notice the color of Mickey?

Re:End of a Dream (2)

msauve (701917) | about a year ago | (#44759313)

"Does anyone else ever notice the color of Mickey?"

Did you ever notice that Mickey has a peer, Goofy, who's a dog. He also has what's obviously a slave dog - Pluto.

Re:End of a Dream (4, Funny)

mcmonkey (96054) | about a year ago | (#44759741)

"Does anyone else ever notice the color of Mickey?"

Did you ever notice that Mickey has a peer, Goofy, who's a dog. He also has what's obviously a slave dog - Pluto.

Obviously Pluto is the field dog. Goofy is the house dog.

Re:End of a Dream (5, Insightful)

meerling (1487879) | about a year ago | (#44759327)

As far as I'm concerned (ianal), the "I have a dream" speech was a historical, public, and defining of an important part of our society. It can't be copyrighted. Any lowlife trying to capitalize on that should be thrown in jail.

Re:End of a Dream (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44759567)

That the is whole idea behind the royalty-free organization that is going to court. They still own it. The summary sounds like a conflict of interest between siblings. The one that runs the organization to promote Reverend King's ideals, and the other siblings that want to cash in on the property. Am I understanding this correctly?

Re:End of a Dream (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about a year ago | (#44759589)

That's how I understood it.

Re:End of a Dream (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44759595)

Does anyone else ever notice the color of Mickey?

Israeli?

Re:End of a Dream (5, Insightful)

AlphaWolf_HK (692722) | about a year ago | (#44759351)

MLK's legacy has largely been decimated by those who claim to support him the most.

One of his most famous sayings was that he had a dream that his four children would not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

People like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, who are now seen as civil rights leaders, basically threw that out completely.and shit on it at almost every turn. Groups like the NAACP are pushing for criminal prosecution of, for example, the rodeo clown who made fun of Obama, even though people in much bigger areas of the limelight have done much worse things to make fun of other presidents. George Zimmerman would never have seen prosecution if he was black or Trayvon was white; guilty or not the evidence just wasn't there which is why they originally chose not to prosecute, and only did so after pressure from racial groups, which goes to show that in America, now the only requirement for prosecution is that public opinion be against you regardless of whether or not you can be proven guilty.

And how are programs like affirmative action following in that spirit? They tell you that, for example, if you have slanted eyes then you immediately deserve lower preference than anybody, but if you have black skin then you automatically get to be first in line.

What a joke the civil rights movement has become.

Re:End of a Dream (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44759493)

Way to regurgitate Fox News! They'll be pleased to note you remembered all the talking points, including the appropriate misdirection, half truths and irrelevant anecdotes.

Re:End of a Dream (-1, Troll)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year ago | (#44759573)

Really? You don't think provoking someone then shooting them shouldn't at least call for a trial?

My understanding is I can now go to FL walk into a bar and start saying anything I want to the first man I see, then wait for him outside and when he attempts to assault me I can legally kill him. Does that seem right to you?

Re:End of a Dream (1, Interesting)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | about a year ago | (#44759631)

Nope! You heard wrong. Where have you been getting your talking points? Which website did you obtain this "understanding" from?

I'm also interested to find out in which reality it is acceptable to assault someone based on nothing but words.

Re:End of a Dream (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44759789)

Thats simply because you are an idiot and have no clue as to the law. On the other hand, if you are in a park, known for violent crimes, notice someone following you and assault them instead of leaving after being within 30ft of your home you deserve to be shot. Because, you assaulted someone who was annoying you but who was still within the law.

Re:End of a Dream (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44759805)

(1) there is no excuse for assault
(2) in the bar example, presumably outside the bouncers are waiting to pull him off you if he starts smashing your head on the pavement

Zimmerman reacted to lethal force with lethal force, which is legal everywhere.

Re:End of a Dream (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44759617)

George Zimmerman would never have seen prosecution if he was black or Trayvon was white

Are you kidding?! George Zimmerman would have been put away for life if he was black and Trayvon was white. Unarmed white kid killed by a black man who stalked and harassed him?

Re:End of a Dream (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44759621)

white man can eat a dick

Re:End of a Dream (-1)

booch (4157) | about a year ago | (#44759623)

George Zimmerman would never have seen prosecution if he was black or Trayvon was white; guilty or not the evidence just wasn't there.

What kind of crack are you smoking? 1. He followed Trayvon -- he was the one doing the assaulting. 2. Do you truly believe that the American justice system treats blacks better than whites?

Re:End of a Dream (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44759711)

The jury found that not only was there a reasonable likelihood that he was attacked first, that he was attacked with sufficient force to warrant the use of a deadly weapon in self-defense. Following someone is legal. Confronting someone following you is also legal. Bashing their head into the pavement is not.

Re:End of a Dream (3, Insightful)

Synerg1y (2169962) | about a year ago | (#44759717)

Prison and jail ethnic population statistics answer that question unceremoniously. You have a huge advantage and the benefit of the doubt in the legal system just by being white. I'll also mention for like billionth time: ZIMMERMAN ISNT OR WILL BE WHITE... fuck cnn.

Re:End of a Dream (2)

TWiTfan (2887093) | about a year ago | (#44759721)

he was the one doing the assaulting

The jury disagreed. And much of the evidence did as well.

Re:End of a Dream (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44759793)

obviously you have some pretty good crack yourself. #1 is blatantly false. (though #2 is dead on)

I can follow you down the sidewalk. I can walk alongside you mirroring your every footstep. In response you may: ignore me, yell at me, ask me to leave, call the police on me, etc. You may not lay hand on me and the first to do that has committed Assault.

Re:End of a Dream (0)

dargaud (518470) | about a year ago | (#44759659)

One of his most famous sayings was that he had a dream that his four children would not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

Yes, and they've now proved beyond doubt that they are worth shit.

George Zimmerman would never have seen prosecution if he was black or Trayvon was white

Funny. Seen from out of the US, it seems more like a case of 'I'm some kind of superhero militia man and I can shoot anybody who doesn't act the way I like'. And did. Uncontrolled militias. Individual militias! Right.

Re:End of a Dream (4, Interesting)

Arker (91948) | about a year ago | (#44759753)

You can shoot someone that jumps out of the shadows and starts beating your head in. That's actually legal virtually everywhere, including all over Europe. In most of Europe, it's very difficult for an individual citizen to legally carry the weapon to begin with, of course, but the right to self defense is hardly a US invention.

Re:End of a Dream (-1, Troll)

Thomasje (709120) | about a year ago | (#44759667)

And how are programs like affirmative action following in that spirit? They tell you that, for example, if you have slanted eyes then you immediately deserve lower preference than anybody, but if you have black skin then you automatically get to be first in line.

Holy hyperbole Batman!

Affirmative action means that the kid with brown skin has a slightly higher chance of getting into college than the kid with the pink skin. You know, a little bit of unfairness going *their* way, to counterbalance the unfairness dark-skinned people experience everywhere else in life. Like having odds of landing a job, with a clean slate, that are equal to a white man's odds with the same qualifications *with a criminal record*. If we can't eliminate racism, at least we can try to make up for it somehow, and that is exactly what affirmative action is for. It does *not* mean that if you're black you're automatically in and if you're Asian you're automatically out.

Try some other news sources than Fox for a change. Heck, try some actual *news* sources.

Re:End of a Dream (5, Insightful)

TWiTfan (2887093) | about a year ago | (#44759693)

he had a dream that his four children would not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

In that case, they've been judged a bunch of selfish, greedy pricks.

Re:End of a Dream (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44759703)

MLK was popular because he was both a tremendously inspiring figure for black people to rally behind and non-threatening to the (white) established powers, compared to the alternative [wikipedia.org] .

Re:End of a Dream (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44759483)

I see yuh twoo caaalaahs shining froo, I see yah twoo caaalahs, twoo caaalahs... twoo caaalahs.. are beautiful like a wainbwoh

Does the Jackson family know about this? (2)

ackthpt (218170) | about a year ago | (#44759171)

I'm certain Michael Jackson's surviving relatives could teach them some real lessons about infighting and degrading the overall value of the property with unseemly squabbles.

i had a dream...

Parasitic leeches. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44759177)

Dr. King was certainly a very positive agent of change in the world. Too bad his children now exemplify everything that is wrong with it.

Re:Parasitic leeches. (5, Informative)

cdrudge (68377) | about a year ago | (#44759359)

They exemplify EVERYTHING that's wrong with it? I can think of far, far more examples of things that they aren't exemplifying that's wrong with the world.

This is a family disagreement that has spilled over to an organization tied to the family. Yes it's ugly. Yes MLK probably would have non-violently spanked all his kids over it. But it's hardly exemplify what's wrong with the world.

Re:Parasitic leeches. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44759405)

OK, OK - there are some things wrong with it which they don't exemplify. Happy?

Re:Parasitic leeches. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44759469)

Money over sanity is exactly why the planet is fucked. Money means power, power corrupts. Why is that so hard to comprehend?

Re:Parasitic leeches. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44759557)

It's not. It's just that it's nowhere close to "everything" that's wrong with the world, which is the GP's point.

Re:Parasitic leeches. (1)

roc97007 (608802) | about a year ago | (#44759369)

Dr. King was certainly a very positive agent of change in the world. Too bad his children now exemplify everything that is wrong with it.

Yes. Irony overload.

Re:Parasitic leeches. (1)

Jmc23 (2353706) | about a year ago | (#44759375)

All his children? Or just the ones trying to profit? Perhaps you should think before you paint everybody with the same brush?

Re:Parasitic leeches. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44759417)

And M.L.K. was a hypocrite - he pretended to be a Christian preacher while he was commiting adultery...

Re:Parasitic leeches. (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44759509)

So that somehow changes his message? Or are you saying people never do anything wrong if they are christian?

1+1=2 would be wrong under your definition because someone who taught it is a hypocrite.

Actually from my experience... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44759535)

Anybody who's preaching to you probably has a few skeletons to hide.

Anybody who's actually living by the tenets you'll probably never hear about because if you're BEING humble instead of 'SAYING' you're humble, few people will notice you at all.

Re:Parasitic leeches. (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year ago | (#44759593)

So?

What do you mean pretended? Sounds like No True Scotsman to me.

I don't think... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44759185)

I don't think this was part of King's dream.

Re:I don't think... (1)

ackthpt (218170) | about a year ago | (#44759271)

I don't think this was part of King's dream.

Certainly is giving some lawyers verrrry interesting dreams - now matter how badly this rolls for the family and perception of them fighting over ownership of the legacy, the lawyers will still collect their due.

It's the American dream.

Re:I don't think... (2)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year ago | (#44759297)

I don't think this was part of King's dream.

Though, if you don't want to be judged by the color of your skin, being filthy stinking rich is a better tactic than most... (also a pretty good way to avoid being judged by the content of your character; but hey!)

Re:I don't think... (1)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | about a year ago | (#44759385)

You may be right, and people tell me that the "I have a dream" speech expresses complex ideals not easily simplified. But to investigate further would be to needless intrude on well established intellectual property rights, and therefore I will have to rely on half remembered paraphrases and misquotations.

Re:I don't think... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44759757)

How so? We're certainly judging his children on the content of the character, not the color of their skin. They just happen to be dicks.

I have a dream (5, Insightful)

SleazyRidr (1563649) | about a year ago | (#44759189)

I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will be judged not by the color of their skin but by the contents of their IP portfolio. Where they can use their last name to profit from my legacy.

Re:I have a dream (2)

ackthpt (218170) | about a year ago | (#44759247)

I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will be judged not by the color of their skin but by the contents of their IP portfolio. Where they can use their last name to profit from my legacy.

Tell me about the dream!

As is the case with increasing frequency, one is left to wonder about the implications intellectual property claims have for free speech when they can be applied to so public a figure as Dr. King."

Never mind it was a public performance, with the most memorable part of the speech being ad-libbed by Dr. King.

He must be doing about Warp 6 in his grave.

Re:I have a dream (1)

thaylin (555395) | about a year ago | (#44759287)

Why, he is the one who got a copyright on it.

Re:I have a dream (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year ago | (#44759393)

Why, he is the one who got a copyright on it.

Yes, but he did so to prevent dickheads from using his words for their own personal profit.

Natch.

Re:I have a dream (2)

spire3661 (1038968) | about a year ago | (#44759475)

Copyright status is granted the INSTANT your ideas hit a fixed form. You dont need to do anything for it to be granted.

Re:I have a dream (2)

sconeu (64226) | about a year ago | (#44759773)

Not in 1963, it wasn't.

Re:I have a dream (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44759325)

It wasn't quite ad-libbed. Dr. King had already given a good portion of the "I have a dream" speech at a smaller rally in Detroit, but had cut that part from the speech that he was to give in Washington, as he didn't want to look like he was repeating himself. The story goes that midway through his speech at the March on Washington, gospel singer Mahalia Jackson shouted, "Tell 'em about the dream, Martin!" as you allude to in your post. At which point Dr. King uttered the famous line, "I still have a dream." The members of the crowd that had been at the Detroit rally began cheering, because they knew what was coming.

Re:I have a dream (1)

alexander_686 (957440) | about a year ago | (#44759343)

You know, the summary had me confused.

Since King’s speech was popular it should not have IP protection. Ergo other popular things, like Star Wars and the NFL games should not have IP protection.

I think we can – are should - argue what level (if any) if historical events should have IP. I think we should be arguing the length of IP restrictions. (50 years seems enough.). But I don’t think we should be arguing that popular things should have a lower level.

Re:I have a dream (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44759477)

Or perhaps just that civil rights leaders should try to stick with Creative Commons or public domain licenses.

Re:I have a dream (2)

spire3661 (1038968) | about a year ago | (#44759505)

I disagree. Once a work has reached a certain cultural ubiquity, there is no point in continued copyright protection. The song 'Happy Birthday' is my go-to example. The song has such an incredibly high cultural penetration that society is harmed more then it is helped by perpetuating its protection.

Re:I have a dream (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44759507)

Copyright itself needs to be abolished; it's disgusting.

I have a dream... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44759203)

...of many more years of royalites!

Call me racist, but this type of stuff coming from minorities does not surprise me.

Re:I have a dream... (1)

ackthpt (218170) | about a year ago | (#44759321)

...of many more years of royalites!

Call me racist, but this type of stuff coming from minorities does not surprise me.

You've obviously missed some select cuts of history, where children or even distant relatives, have done like and frittered away their family fortunes, enriching lawyers only in the process.

I was just quoting a case in California Law to a colleague this morning, where no more than 25% of an estate may be left to charity if there are surviving relatives. One charity would be a school for the deaf. Damn the charities, the cousin said and usurped 75% of the estate and sold it off. Back in the early 1900's.

Re:I have a dream... (2)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year ago | (#44759331)

...of many more years of royalites!

Call me racist, but this type of stuff coming from minorities does not surprise me.

Is there any population group where dickheaded infighting over who gets to inherit the family cash is a surprise? Even people too poor to have assets worth fighting over can use 'dividing the estate' as a proxy for all the childhood emnities over who mommy and daddy loved best, magnified by all the anxiety, rivalry, bitterness, and jealousy about who did, and didn't, achieve the life that they wanted for themselves, with nothing but a few trinkets of sentimental value. Once you put some cash on the table... break out the lawyers.

I was just going to add: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44759579)

Tolkien
Roddenberry

To the list of people whose children have been dicks with their parent's IP.

Anybody else have other memorable examples?

Non-violence, Except... (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about a year ago | (#44759205)

... for stuff we can make money on, then expect to see jackbooted thugs raiding your offices if you continue to use our grandfather's public speech in public discourse without paying us.

Re:Non-violence, Except... (1)

roc97007 (608802) | about a year ago | (#44759353)

... for stuff we can make money on, then expect to see jackbooted thugs raiding your offices if you continue to use our grandfather's public speech in public discourse without paying us.

Interesting collateral damage is that the very people who should hear the speech will not be able to afford to do so.

Re:Non-violence, Except... (1)

Jmc23 (2353706) | about a year ago | (#44759365)

You're confused. Perhaps you should find out what you're talking about?

I have a nightmare... (5, Insightful)

Russ1642 (1087959) | about a year ago | (#44759239)

...that my children will undo everything positive about my life.

Re:I have a nightmare... (1)

ackthpt (218170) | about a year ago | (#44759291)

...that my children will undo everything positive about my life.

Pass them my card, ackthpt of Dewey, Skrewum & Howe LLP

Re:I have a nightmare... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44759307)

TNB

Happy Birthday (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44759251)

Sing Happy Birthday. Record it. Sell it.

I dare you.

I'm just saying, if we're going to talk about the insanity of copyright law in regards to things one assumes are in the public domain, I Have a Dream isn't first on the list of absurd examples...

Re:Happy Birthday (2)

Entropius (188861) | about a year ago | (#44759739)

It's unique in that it's a milestone political speech. Having it in the public domain greatly enhances our ability, years later, to have a political conversation referencing it.

copyright, not IP (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44759263)

It's copyright that is the question here, not IP (Internet Protocol, Imaginary Property, Innings Pitched). Don't confuse things by throwing IP in there when the matter is clearly about copyright and even says so.

If you're going to be pedantic, at least be right. (2)

Valdrax (32670) | about a year ago | (#44759673)

IP means "intellectual property," as you well know, which is a broad term for the only semi-related torts and laws governing the use and reproduction of ideas: copyright, patents, trademarks & trade dress, publicity, and trade secrets. Copyright is one of the three main pillars of IP law.

If you want to bitch about how useless "intellectual property" is as a term when it covers such disparate and unrelated laws & torts, then you're several centuries too late. All of property law has long been described as "a bundle of sticks," because there's almost no relation between trespass & nuisance, wills & trusts and other estate law, landlord-tenant law, easements, covenants, water rights, subsurface rights, bailment, all the dozens of other semi-random "involves a thing or place" legal concepts you have learn in Property class. But without the full set, the concept of property falls apart.

Same goes for intellectual property, right or wrong.

useless parasites (2)

jmcvetta (153563) | about a year ago | (#44759269)

These useless parasites - King's sons - are stealing our culture. They are a disgrace to Dr King's memory.

Re:useless parasites (2)

Lord Apathy (584315) | about a year ago | (#44759363)

I agree. Enough is enough. All of King's speeches, images, and works should be taken from this greedy family and placed in the public domain. They belong to everyone and not just whoever can pay for them.

Re:useless parasites (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44759523)

In America, there's no such thing as the public domain anymore -- because the first douchebag corporation to copyright a new copy of it gets a fresh copyright.

The USA is incapable of recognizing something like public domain these days -- if there's no way for a company to profit from it, it doesn't exist.

So companies like Disney have made a fortune off taking stuff in the public domain, but have also gotten laws passed which will prevent anything else from doing the same.

Slightly related... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44759277)

I have a DRM! [b3ta.com]

:-D

Unintended effects (1)

spamchang (302052) | about a year ago | (#44759285)

I wonder if the release of Dr. King's works to the world and substantial realization of social justice in America will coincide. Maybe the continued familial infighting will prolong both of those events.

Re:Unintended effects (1)

roc97007 (608802) | about a year ago | (#44759345)

How could it not?

One of the earliest IP cases (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44759323)

MLK and his family had to stop record labels from making copies of the speech to sell even back while he was alive

Two things: (1)

roc97007 (608802) | about a year ago | (#44759329)

One, Dr King is most probably spinning in his grave. I can't imagine a world where Dr. King wanted access limited to his "I have a dream" speech.

Two, if the family wants his name back, they can have it. "Martin Luther King Junior Boulevard" doesn't fit on the stationary anyway.

Re:Two things: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44759759)

As Chris Rock said: "You're lost, and you're on MLK [Avenue]? RUN! It doesn't matter which way, just run!"

I've not been to any city where I'd like to be on MLK after dark. Well, one -- but it's Mainz, Germany.

MLK Jr.'s sons should be ashamed. (2)

Apharmd (2640859) | about a year ago | (#44759347)

Do you think that King would want his speech (of historical importance) locked up behind copyright? Is this how they choose to honor their father's memory?
Just disgusting.

Re:MLK Jr.'s sons should be ashamed. (1)

Tailhook (98486) | about a year ago | (#44759565)

Do you think that King would want his speech (of historical importance) locked up behind copyright?

King sued [leagle.com] for copyright infringement of the speech in 1963. That's what got the whole copyright ball rolling.

So yeah, this is exactly what he wanted.

Re:MLK Jr.'s sons should be ashamed. (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about a year ago | (#44759639)

That was against a record company trying to sell it for profit, almost the opposite of the current situation.

Oh for crying out loud ... (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about a year ago | (#44759349)

Does IP law really mean that if I invent something my greedy bastard children get to lay claim on it for decades???

Can you will it to a charity?

This just sounds like the family cash cow as everybody tries to make bank on what daddy did.

posthumous copyright (2)

intermodal (534361) | about a year ago | (#44759367)

This kind of thing is a great example of why long posthumous copyrights need to be abolished. Along with a certan quantity of other copyright schemes. This in no way encourages the creation of new works, nor innovation except in the field of fivolous lawsuits.

Re:posthumous copyright (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44759449)

But the people who are set to profit the most from this are people who usually become our law-writers... Lawyers, so why would they cut out their profit margin?

Stupid is as stupid does (1)

Agent0013 (828350) | about a year ago | (#44759421)

If they don't want his historic speech to be heard by people, then I propose we just forget about him and pretend he never existed. Their precious IP will be worthless if nobody even know who MLK is anymore.

Re:Stupid is as stupid does (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44759521)

Either you are retarded, drunk, high, pretending to be retarded, pretending to be drunk, pretending to be high, or some combination of those options.

None of them, however, is good, when the casual observer can discern such a state from you writings.

You should re-consider some of the choices you have made regarding how you are living your life. Just sayin'.

Copywritten? (4, Insightful)

chrismcb (983081) | about a year ago | (#44759431)

I wondered how this speech could even be copyrighted, as apparently it wasn't registered. Mr wiki says there was a lawsuit a few years ago to determine whether the speech was copyrighted or not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Have_a_Dream [wikipedia.org]
What I don't get is, Mr wiki also claims the speech is under copyright for 120 years, but shouldn't it have been death + 50 years?
The worst part about it, is I find it difficult to believe that someone who made a speech like that would not want it in the public domain. Not having it in the public domain sort of defeats the purpose of the speech.

Re:Copywritten? (2, Interesting)

evilRhino (638506) | about a year ago | (#44759471)

If we put the speech in the public domain, what incentive would MLK, Jr. have to make more speeches. This is about protecting the artists people!

Re:Copywritten? (0)

spire3661 (1038968) | about a year ago | (#44759559)

YOU DONT NEED TO REGISTER FOR SOMETHING TO BE COPYRIGHTED. The instant your ideas are put into a fixed form, its copyrighted. Every picture you have ever taken is copyrighted to you. You only need to register if you plan on suing.

Re:Copywritten? (1)

BenFranske (646563) | about a year ago | (#44759675)

That has not always been true.

Re:Copywritten? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44759681)

I'm guessing he wouldn't have wanted it in PD because anyone could use it for whatever purpose they wanted. "I have a Dream, that one day our sodas will not be judged by their flashy colors, but by the content of their cans. Co-ca-Co-laaaaaaahhhhhhh."

Re:Copywritten? (1)

Ksevio (865461) | about a year ago | (#44759707)

Mr wiki might be wrong on this one - It should have been death +50 (+20 bonus years after 1998). The 120 years is suppose to be time after creation for corporate owned IP. Since it was essentially published (not just created), it would only be 95 years, but since Dr. King wasn't a corporation, I'd guess it'd only be 70 years after his death. Not sure now that his Estate owns it if that turns it into a corporation copyright, but either way, the 120 years seems wrong.

one is left to wonder... (1)

OglinTatas (710589) | about a year ago | (#44759519)

one is left to wonder about the implications intellectual property claims have for free speech when they can be applied to so public a figure as Dr. King.

One is left to wonder etc. when they can be applied beyond the lifetime of the creator of the IP, famous or not

Please explain to me (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44759547)

Why does copyright run for longer than the author's life? Wasn't it ment to support the author, not {his agents,his estate,some random stranger or company of strangers who bought up the rights,...}?

My lawyer friends "Had a Dream" (4, Funny)

triffid_98 (899609) | about a year ago | (#44759597)

I say to you today, my friends, so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.

I have a dream that one day my children will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these images and speeches to be copyrighted, and that it should be self-evident: that all of my children are entitled to residual revenue in perpetuity, as authorized under section 6 of the copyright act of 1976"

End of a dream. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44759599)

Dr. king would slap all his kids so hard for being that kind of douchebag.

Lets flip it hard see how they like that.

So whitey was right. All them niggers just greedy savages out for themselves and money.
They don't really give a fuck about equality, fairness, what's right. Just money and selfishness.

Looks like nobody shared your dream.

Free speech? (1)

Theaetetus (590071) | about a year ago | (#44759601)

As is the case with increasing frequency, one is left to wonder about the implications intellectual property claims have for free speech when they can be applied to so public a figure as Dr. King.

Sorry, Subby, but no, "free speech" doesn't mean you can freely appropriate someone's work just because they're a "public figure". See, the "free" part is about their freedom from persecution, not your cost of royalties when you put their speech on t-shirts.

Family fighting family over money. (1)

Chas (5144) | about a year ago | (#44759727)

I might actually give a shit about his kids if it wasn't for the fact that they're just wrangling amongst themselves over money.

This is why IP/Copyright/etc/etc should be life of the creator +20 years or a flat 20 years in the case of assets held by a corporation.

It has now been over FIFTY YEARS since the man gave his famous speech. And he's been dead for 45 of them. I'd think that his children have reaped a decent return off something they didn't do for themselves.

Solution... (1)

bhlowe (1803290) | about a year ago | (#44759801)

Replace Martin Luther King Day with "Civil Rights Day". Then let the lawyers figure it out for the family....
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>