Don't expect to see MLK's "I Have a Dream" speech this coming week.

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

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.

Maybe this is a poor choice of terminology on my part.... but you make the comparison a bit more black-and-white than it may be. Many of the stadiums are built with at least partial use of public funding.

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.

What if MSNBC was in the mood to consider part or all of the fee a donation to a charitable organization. Would it not be condescending on your part to tell them they shouldn't do that because it does not meet your definition of how the system should work?

There is no need to be condescending in providing non-answers.

 

[ixnay]

No, because of past rulings by that court.

Please elaborate for us non-legal experts. What's the reputation of the 11th Circuit?

ixnay

 

[frnkp2000]

Please elaborate for us non-legal experts. What's the reputation of the 11th Circuit?

ixnay

Non-broadcast related.

 

[frnkp2000]

"What if MSNBC was in the mood to consider part or all of the fee a donation to a charitable organization. Would it not be condescending on your part to tell them they shouldn't do that because it does not meet your definition of how the system should work?"

From Page 2 of the decision:

On September 30, 1963, approximately one month after the delivery of the Speech, Dr. King took
steps to secure federal copyright protection for the
Speech under the Copyright Act of 1909, and a certificate
of registration of his claim to copyright was issued
by the Copyright Office on October 2, 1963. Almost
immediately thereafter, Dr. King filed suit in the Southe
rn District of New York to enjoin the unauthorized
sale of recordings of the Speech and won a preliminary injunction on December 13, 1963.
King v. Mister
Maestro, Inc.,
224 F.Supp. 101 (S.D.N.Y.1963).

What charity did Dr. King have in mind? There is no mention in the decision. Of course,there doesn't HAVE to be any mention. For approximately one month, films and recordings of the speech were being widely distributed, and THEN the copyright was applied for?? "Almost immediately thereafter" a suit was filed. Written copies of the speech were given out at the press tent to virtually anyone who asked for it. There is a lot of interesting discussion in this decision. What were the real motives to keep video and audio of an historical event locked in the vaults of the networks? Big charitable donations! Of course!