With the approaching fiftieth anniversary of the 1963 March on Washington just days, a vast array of programming to mark the occasion is scheduled. you would think that these programs would include portions of the most widely remembered speech of the day, which is Dr. King's "I Have a Dream" speech, but don't expect to see it even though the networks have it on videotape. The King family owns the copyright to that speech and has for many years and will not allow it to be broadcast...even small portions of it...unless they are paid a lot of money. I understand their wanting to prevent the speech from being exploited, but because of this, millions who might otherwise be able to watch one of the great speeches of the 20th century now cannot. You can't even reprint the speech without permission and writing a large check. It's unfortunate, but it's all about money. Just my opinion.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
Don't expect to see MLK's "I Have a Dream" speech this coming week.
- Thread starter davalvideo
- Start date
It certainly should be rebroadcast in its entirety.
That's a weird thing and I don't completely understand it. Airing the whole thing may, in fact, be a problem.
But... it was a public speech in a public place--and the networks recorded it themselves. So at least portions of it are "Fair Use." I think if someone really pursued it, the Supreme Court would say it's ALL fair game.
CBS settled too early, possibly not wanting to offend all of King's followers. But really, the court's ruling that allowed King's family to sue doesn't make sense. It says "distribution to TV networks" does not qualify as general publication. How more "general" can you get than being broadcast to an entire nation on 3 television networks?
But... it was a public speech in a public place--and the networks recorded it themselves. So at least portions of it are "Fair Use." I think if someone really pursued it, the Supreme Court would say it's ALL fair game.
CBS settled too early, possibly not wanting to offend all of King's followers. But really, the court's ruling that allowed King's family to sue doesn't make sense. It says "distribution to TV networks" does not qualify as general publication. How more "general" can you get than being broadcast to an entire nation on 3 television networks?
The speech was copywritten AFTER the broadcast on August 28, 1963, but that didn't stop the networks from airing large portions of it right up until the mid 1990s when the CBS suit took place. It is a shame, as the entire speech, not just the "I Have a Dream" segment, is one of the great oratories of our history, and everyone should have a chance to see and hear it. Yes, you can buy an authorized video from the King Center for twenty bucks or so, but have you seen it? The source material is a poor quality kinescope...it looks terrible. All three networks have the speech on videotape, at much higher quality...and yet they can't show it. In 2003, Peter Jennings produced a special for ABC about the march and the speech itself. The special contained large portions of the speech and was shown only once, never rebroadcast and never offered on DVD. I called PJ Productions and the man I spoke to was very polite and said the network paid a large fortune for a one time only airing of the speech, which he said was a "God-damn shame because it was a terrific program". I agree.
Yep - all I see are the I Have a Dream segments about the four children and the mentions of Alabama. The lines that get way overplayed on these anniversaries. Not right to have it copyrighted, and the networks not allowed to show the speech. Very important to American history!
-crainbebo
-crainbebo
I won't disagree with any of you. However, I've found it interesting that I
have heard no mention of two other events which had taken place by this time in
1963: the antithesis of Dr. King's speech (George Wallace's "stand in the
schoolhouse door" at the University of Alabama) and JFK's "Ich bin ein Berliner"
speech, particularly relevant since the Berlin Wall no longer exists.
I'm waiting for November to see what the networks do to mark the 50th anniversary
of JFK's assassination. I hope the History Channel will replay the coverage they've shown
in the past, primarily from ABC and its Dallas affiliate WFAA.
have heard no mention of two other events which had taken place by this time in
1963: the antithesis of Dr. King's speech (George Wallace's "stand in the
schoolhouse door" at the University of Alabama) and JFK's "Ich bin ein Berliner"
speech, particularly relevant since the Berlin Wall no longer exists.
I'm waiting for November to see what the networks do to mark the 50th anniversary
of JFK's assassination. I hope the History Channel will replay the coverage they've shown
in the past, primarily from ABC and its Dallas affiliate WFAA.
Surprise boys and girls!!! The speech WAS PRESENTED in it's entirety today on MSNBC.
I think I heard them say it will also be presented again during the evening hours.
I think I heard them say it will also be presented again during the evening hours.
Slightly OT, but what other non-showbiz historical figures are licensed? Should they be? Would licensing George Washington be ethical?
Albert Einstein is licensed...
http://rogerrichman.us/archive.albert-einstein.net/index2.html
...so is Shoeless Joe Jackson, the most (in)famous of the Black Sox (or as my stepdad calls them, the Dirty Sox) of 1919...
http://shoelessjoejackson.com/business/form_inquiries.html
(although you could count athletes as entertainers if you consider sports to have always been showbiz)
There's two examples (I've seen print ads with both Einstein [for a camera, draped around his neck] and Jackson [I forget what for]).
ixnay
Albert Einstein is licensed...
http://rogerrichman.us/archive.albert-einstein.net/index2.html
...so is Shoeless Joe Jackson, the most (in)famous of the Black Sox (or as my stepdad calls them, the Dirty Sox) of 1919...
http://shoelessjoejackson.com/business/form_inquiries.html
(although you could count athletes as entertainers if you consider sports to have always been showbiz)
There's two examples (I've seen print ads with both Einstein [for a camera, draped around his neck] and Jackson [I forget what for]).
ixnay
T
theoldguy
Guest
MSNBC must have paid the king family their legal bribe.
I am still unclear as to how a network broadcast of a public event can be "owned" by a family. Can someone elaborate?
So, following those lines of reasoning, the family/estate of anyone who has ever had their image/voice broadcast over the airwaves can lay claim to and copyright it? We wouldn't have any history left!
One doesn't have to be a legal mind to see that something stinks here. The fact that it was the 11th Circuit Court speaks volumes, as well. Dangerous precedent.
Last edited:
Why, because that circuit is based in King's hometown, Atlanta? (The circuit embraces GA, AL, and FL).
ixnay
An NFL football game is a public event. Ever listen to the verbiage of the copyright notice that the broadcast is "owned" and may not be rebroadcast without permission? Sports bars have to jump through various copyright issues to have all the TVs around the room. Religious broadcasters copyright those public events... including things like the Billy Graham Crusades.
We have patent laws in America. They may or may not be a fair balance.
We have copyright laws in America. They may or may not be a fair balance.
We have trademark laws in America. They may or may not be a fair balance.
If you really want to understand all these issues, you probably need to talk to a lawyer.... not a bunch of us hay-seeds populating an online forum where no one is asked to present their credentials to enter a topic.
T
theoldguy
Guest
i know it is what it is.however ,when historical speeches are copyrighted decades after they are made,purely for profit, something seems wrong there.not legally wrong but morally wrong.
I live in the shadow of the King Memorial and the home base of part of the King family and I read the Atlanta daily paper which will have a short news quip if a member of the King family sneezes twice in one day. And there has been some internal push-and-shove between the children from time to time.
But there could be something more altruistic going on along side any profit motive. As an officer of the foundations and memorials set up to honor King and to operate a museum and tell the story of Dr. King, you have an obligation to see that history records the story and the legend with some accuracy. Copyright of the famous speeches not only conveys the opportunity to generate revenue from the use of those speeches, it gives the opportunity to dictate what other comments and material will surround the broadcast of the speech. It give the opportunity to forbid taking little sound-bites out of the speech and arranging them in an order that tells what you believe to be a distortied picture of Dr. King.
There is more than profit at work here. There is a family trying to shape the record that goes into the history books into what they believe to be the accurate legacy. And it will be the job of historians to record whether the family did a good and honest job of that. And to record for history whether the family became profit-hungry or not.
No, because of past rulings by that court.
I beg to differ on sports events. They are private events that charge admission that are held on private property. Therefore, they may allow or not allow microphones and cameras for profit or not as they see fit. The King speech was held on publicly owned land, The Washington Mall, no admission was charged to witness the event, and hundreds (if not more) of cameras and microphones were present without anyone's permission.
Mr. Fybush: "A Federal court said so" is a most convenient answer. However, federal courts have also upheld slavery, segregation, denial of a woman's right to vote, etc. Well, they said so! I am more interested in WHY the court "said so" in this case, which is coming up empty in searches. Court rulings are based on OPINIONS, and I too have mine, whether or not it agrees with the Court.
And SHAME on MSNBC for paying (apparently) a lot of money for something that is a part of history, should be considered fair use and in the public domain.
Perhaps we DO have someone who reads these boards who can offer insight into this most unusual case. There is no need to be condescending in providing non-answers.
Last edited:
Please don't shoot the messenger. You asked why the King speech is considered to be copyrighted content, and I cited the court case that upheld that copyright. I didn't express an opinion on whether or not it was a good ruling. I'm not a lawyer.
The actual ruling, should you wish to read it, is here:
http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19989079.MAN.pdf
No condescension was intended on my part, and I'm sorry if that's what was perceived.
- Status