The Washington Post: 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.
11 comments:
I am completely in support of any copyright that Martin Luther King Jr. may have filed after his speech, how ever the speech has become much more of a larger issue to me than just a copy. The I have a Dream speech has become part of our nation. The speech is taught to every child in america. The speech is a model of equality that we as a nation have been striving for, for years. The speech although copyrighted by Martin Luther King Jr. almost does not belong to him any more, but, instead to the nation. It has turned into an idea that belongs to the people of this country. It belongs to every boy, girl, and citizen that quotes that speech for inspiration and it belongs to any and every person that has ever notice injustice based on human characteristic that cannot be changed. That is who the I have a Dream speech belongs too. So where Martin Luther King Jr. may have written, copyrighted and internalized those words, the people of america have believed and loved those word just as much has Martin Luther King Jr. did.
It is completely reasonable that Martin Luther King Jr. copyright his speech. He wrote and delivered the speech and he deserves the right to protect it. However, his "I Have a Dream" speech is now considered a major pivotal point in the equal rights movement. It is important for us to understand and believe his words just as much as he did. We use it for inspiration and sources not only in art and education but in everyday lives. It is for these reasons that I agree with the author, Josh Schiller, that "Any restriction on public access to the content of such a historical artifact should be enforced with caution."
I think its completely within his rights to ask that people uphold the copyright. Even though it seems like its such a large part of american history, we all have to recognize that it still is someones creative work. Especially these media companies who are really just using it for personal gain. I would say that I think within a historical context for education that constitutes fair use. I also think it will be really interesting what happens in 2038 when it does become part of the public domain. I hope that it doesnt become so commercialized that it loses the impact.
I appreciate the respect with which this article was written. I completely agree with the author in that King's wishes for his words and likeness to be protected are legitimate and understandable, but that not being able to access records of such an important moment in history is detrimental to future generations being able to recognize and appreciate the gravity of the event. It seems like "Fair Use" allows for the speech to be shown and read in full in classrooms, which is great, but what about those of us who aren't in grade school anymore? There's a line between protecting the work and its author while allowing the public to access the work, and restricting access to the work so much that it can't be remembered and appreciated in full by all who wish to. I understand King's estate wanting to protect his work and likeness, but I am appalled by the fact that the estate received $700,000 for a memorial to be built in King's honor. It seems like the strict copyright rules and the fees charged by the estate are making it extremely difficult for King's life and work to be fully appreciated and shared with the public.
It's really cool that he had thought of that. His speech was so monumental to our history that he should get recognized for it. I support his copyright because his work needs to be protected. I'm sure that the Presidents' speeches get some kind of copyright on them, just as songs do. It is his work and his words that are the meaning of the whole speech. There are some times where it could get a little crazy, like if a song writer uses the words "I have a dream" in a song and then gets attacked for using four simple words in the English language. That is a little on the extreme side of copyright. Now if that same song writer uses an entire passage in the song, that's another story completely. King should be given credit for his work.
There have been innumerable articles about copyright law on the blog in the past few years, and this is one of the most interesting. I had no idea that King had his speech copyrighted months before it was given, or how the rules surrounding that copyright have been enforced. I think think this article was very well written, and was a good explanation of the issue at hand. I agree that King's speech should absolutely be protected under copyright. My only issue is, like Shannon, I was incredibly surprised at how much the estate was paid in order for the government to use King's likeness and words on the new memorial in DC. I know this is wishful thinking, but I would have thought that the estate would recognize how much of a part of our national identity the speech has become, as well as Martin Luther King Jr. himself, and so been more accommodating with the use of his image and words for a national memorial.
I had no idea that there was a copyright on his "I have a dream" speech. I find that quite sad. It is understandable that King and the estate would want to protect his work, especially at the time it was written. However, the world has changed a great deal and it should be publically accessible at this point. Thinking back on it, I don't recall ever hearing or reading the complete speech, which is disheartening seeing as that speech, as well as the march on Washington, is such a pivotal part of black history. It's a reminder that the life I live can't be taken for granted. It's horrid that something that pivotal cannot be freely accessed. I'm not saying copyright is a bad thing. It has its time and place. When the speech cam out, Martin Luther King jr. probably didn't know how important that speech would be down the road, but I think we've reach the point in our history where copyright really needs to be reevaluated.
It seems counterproductive for Martin Luther King Jr.'s estate to be controlling his speech in this way. I always wondered why we were never shown a recording of this speech in school when we were studying Martin Luther King Jr., and this article explains why. I would assume that his estate would want to spread his words to as many people as possible, in order to keep his message alive, but in this article it seems like they are just trying to get money ($20 for a single recording?) It seems like this focus on charging for the right to use this speech is cutting it off from those who need it the most- the underfunded schools filled with minority children who need to know about their history and their potential. Words are powerful- this speech proves that. To turn it into a profit-making device seems unethical and immoral.
It seems counterproductive for Martin Luther King Jr.'s estate to be controlling his speech in this way. I always wondered why we were never shown a recording of this speech in school when we were studying Martin Luther King Jr., and this article explains why. I would assume that his estate would want to spread his words to as many people as possible, in order to keep his message alive, but in this article it seems like they are just trying to get money ($20 for a single recording?) It seems like this focus on charging for the right to use this speech is cutting it off from those who need it the most- the underfunded schools filled with minority children who need to know about their history and their potential. Words are powerful- this speech proves that. To turn it into a profit-making device seems unethical and immoral.
I had no idea that King had copyrighted this speech, and I wonder if he did the same with other speeches. On some level it does seem wrong that he wanted to constrict the flow and freedom of his words that preach the opposite, but as Kristen said it's important that he receive credit for his work. I think that it was a good move on MLKs part to protect his work in that manner, but his estate may be abusing it a bit by charging $20 for a CD. What's really horrible though is that they received $700,000 in return for the construction of a monument to MLK. It seems like that would be the kind of thing that they would want to be supporting. I think that it's going to be really interesting in 2038 when the copyright is lifted and the speech will be in the public domain. I just hope that what Trent said doesn't come true and the media doesn't abuse these great words to the point where thy become meaningless.
It strikes me as odd that King would have put so much effort into restricting access to his speech. King's message was one that I would think he would want spread as much as possible such that, like the Declaration of Independence for example, it rallied as many as possible behind his cause. In this case, equal rights.
Post a Comment