Copyright and the King, this time Martin Luther King Jr.

Today is a momentus day. It’s the second inauguration of Barak Obama, the first African-American President of the United States.  Today is also the day on which we honor the memory and legacy of Martin Luther King, Jr., the greatest American civil rights leader of all time. 

Unlike President Obama, however, Reverend King lead from the sidelines not as a politician but as a voice of conscience.   While President Obama can give a good speech none compare to the speeches Reverend King gave on bad days.  Reverend King was one of the greatest orators of all time.

But Reverend King was not an elected official.  When he gave a speech, whether from the pulpit of a church in Memphis or from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington DC, he did so as a public citizen.  Under the copyright law in effect while he was alive, Reverend King retained the copyright in his speeches regardless of their import to our society.  Had Reverend King been a federally elected politician or appointed official the copyrights would vest with his employer, the American people, and be in the public domain.

However, as a lay leader with a talent for words one of the greatest legacies he left his widow and children were the value those words had.  Associates of Reverend King speak of his generosity but it is important to remember that when he died at the hand of an assassin in my hometown, he had left nothing other than those words for his family.  In fact it is likely that Reverend King knew that the words he wrote had value as he registered the copyrights in his speeches with the Library of Congress as the Copyright Act of 1909 required.  

Over the years since Reverend King’s untimely passing his widow, and children, have struggled with balancing their interest in his legacy with the interest we all have in it. They have exerted control over the words to prevent uses that they felt would not honor Reverend King’s legacy, as well as situations where the use would compete with their interests.  Exerting that control is well within the family’s right as the holder of the exclusive rights to the copyrights in the speeches Reverend King wrote.

Though King’s family is well within their rights when they exercise control over the speeches, many (okay probably most) people find the practice discomforting.  Didn’t Reverend King write those words for all of us?  Aren’t we all supposed to heed the words in his speeches? 

Slate has published an editorial which supposes that tweeting the words of a Martin Luther King speech would be a form of civil disobedience because the action would infringe the copyrights.  The author of the article completely ignores that some uses of the speech, in its entirety as well as segments, may be appropriate without permission from, or compensation to, the King family under the concept of Fair Use.  According to the editorial, a video was removed from YouTube because it included a clip of one of Reverend King’s speeches as an example of copyright being too restrictive.  As I can’t find the video I can’t comment on how the clip was used but it seems to me that Mr. Ammori, the author of the ediotrial, could have made a fair use argument under the commentary exception.  However, instead he, like others, attacks the concept of copyright because the King family feigns to control Reverend King’s legacy.  Most importantly he ignores that Reverend King took the time to register his copyrights to prevent his works from being deemed to be in the public domain.

About Nancy Prager

Nancy Prager is an attorney based in Washington, D.C. She represents a wide range of clients on matters from intellectual property to estate planning. Before starting her own practice, she practiced with firms in Memphis and Atlanta, as well as providing business development services to technology companies. She launched her practice to offer strategic legal services to clients at an affordable rate. Additionally, Nancy is a sought after speaker and writer on issues related to the convergence of intellectual property, technology and media. Nancy was asked to write a series of commentaries for on the emerging legal issues related to the transmission of content on the internet. She has spoken to organizations and conferences around the country on issues related to the convergence of technology, content and intellectual property, as well as strategic legal issues for companies, individuals and artists. Journalists often rely on Nancy as a resource for emerging legal issues. Nancy has a strong commitment to social justice. She has founded, or co-founded, a number of organizations and programs that provide tangible services to their constituencies. For example, while a student in law school she developed the Domestic Violence Advocacy Center that provides legal services to victims of domestic violence. Additionally, she has been involved with a number of organizations that provide services to children and their families, including serving on the boards of the Harwood Center and Porter Leath Children’s Services. She is a graduate of Wake Forest University School of Law and the University of Wisconsin, Madison. She is a member of the District of Columbia Bar, the State Bar of Georgia and the State Bar of Tennessee. She has been a member of a variety of legal organizations including the Copyright Society of the USA and the American Bar Association.
This entry was posted in copyfight, copyleft, copyright, copyright clearance, copyright infringement, Copyright Policy, copyright term, Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s