The King children are at it again: demanding consultation (and presumably payment) for any work on their father. Recently, I wrote a column denouncing the King family’s history of bilking authors, institutions, and even the King Memorial committee for money. Now, two children are objecting to a movie on the life of Martin Luther King Jr, by Dreamworks due to the temerity of the creators not to seek their blessing and permission. They are threatening legal action. If Dreamworks has an ounce of civic pride and love for Martin Luther King, it will tell these King kids to get lost and invite such a lawsuit. Their brother, Dexter, reportedly cut a deal with Dreamworks, which should detail any such payments. I fail to see the basis of such a lawsuit, but also why companies continue to enable this family in controlling and cashing in on King’s legacy.
This would be the company’s first big screen project on King.
While Dexter King said that movie would “be the definitive film” on his father’s legacy, Bernice King and Martin Luther King III threatened a lawsuit. Referring to herself, Bernice King objected to the fact that any company would consider a movie on King when “‘[t]hey don’t have the blessings of Bernice and Martin King.”
What concerns me is that two other kids object to Dreamworks engaging in a business deal with their brother without their being part of the deal. Once again, it is not clear why a company has to give King’s family any such deal — a practice that is encouraging this predatorial conduct. King’s family has a copyright on the “I Have a Dream” speech and demands payment for its use. Martin Luther King himself reportedly ran out and made the claim on the speech himself, which diminishes his stature. A court upheld the copyright protection on the speech. Here is what the Eleventh Circuit said about the claim in one such case involving CBS brought by the family:
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 Southern 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).
The 11th Circuit and other courts treat such speeches as the same as songs and poems performed on the mall. The question is whether this is a logical rule. I do not see why speakers on the mall should not agree that any speech is waived as belonging to the public domain. It is a great honor to speak to the nation from the Mall. It seems ridiculous to try to convince a nation to follow your view on a subject like desegregation or equality and then charge anyone who uses your words. A song or a poem is written to entertain beyond any given event. A speech is part of the public debate and these copyright claims chill speech, as shown by the King family.
When you give a speech on the congressional mall, it should belong to the nation. More importantly, Congress should have premised the creation of the King memorial on the family releasing this speech to the public domain (as President release their documents in exchange for presidential libraries).
For the full story, click here.
GTownLawCenterProf:
“This is nothing but fatuous tripe until we hear Prof. Turley argue broadly that copyrights and intellectual property are exclusively owned by the creator and can’t be devised, inherited or assigned.”
*************
Oh you Georgetown guys are all alike basking in your 14th place ranking in US News, using ethereal words like “tripe,” and looking down on we plebeians. I prefer to look at it this way, since you guys aren’t first you’re still just seeing the rear ends of thirteen other schools as you circle the track. 🙂
By the way, we’ve discussed that topic in another artistic context previously on the blog. Please do try and keep up.:p
This is nothing but fatuous tripe until we hear Prof. Turley argue broadly that copyrights and intellectual property are exclusively owned by the creator and can’t be devised, inherited or assigned.
Similarly, Professor Turley’s idea that works performed on the Mall should become national property devoid of copyright protection would come as a great surprise to, say, Bruce Springsteen, Stevie Wonder and everyone else who performed at the Inaugural Concert on the mall as well as thousands of other artists, speakers, and performers who have performed or delivered their works on the Mall.
GWLawSchoolMom:
to whom do Dr. Kings work legally belong? That person or persons can do what they wish with the work.
Leonardo Da Vinci was a great man but most of his works are in private hands or in universities or museums that paid large sums of money to get them.
Although I do agree that his likeness is pretty much in the public domain but private letters, sermons, speeches, etc. belong to the family unless he had a will specifically designating some other beneficiary.
Bron
You wrote: **Arent the children entitiled to their fathers work? He would want them taken care of. Although if he was the man I think him to be he would also want them to stand on their own feet.
Do his works belong to the public or are they private works? Did he will them to posterity or to his family?
I read some of his letters from the jail, they were the thoughts of a great mind.**
Entitled to their father’s work? No, not at all. I am not entitles to my father’s work. I’m not even entitled to inherit. If my parents chose to leave their estate to me and my sibs that is their choice and how we administer the estate should benefit us, bring us some monetary comfort, but not exploit the work he did.
I think all parents want their children to be successfully independent. I want my kids to have meaningful work and meaningful relationships so that when I am gone they will have something substantial and while I hope to have some kind of an estate to leave them, my goal would not be for them to have the stranglehold for pure profit that the King children seem to have on their parent’s legacy. And it isn’t like my family has made a contribution close to the one that MLK and his wife made.
I was in D.C. and few months ago there was a photographic exhibition of the early years of the civil rights movement I think at the Freer or maybe the Sackler. The walls were lined with these pictures of MLK and Jesse Jackson and all the leaders of the SNCC and NAACP. They were so young and beautiful and so full of promise. I have no idea of the King children were involved in allowing these photographs to be displayed or not. They were the work and property of the photographers who took them and they captured a brief time in our history where a few men and women did something courageous.
How do we put a price tag on this kind of courage? On this kind of decency? On participation and leadership of a movement that led us to where we are today?
It’s venal and its avarice on the part of the King children to want to make a buck off of their father’s work in this way.
Bron,
Your argument has merit especially because of the way MLK died, 39 years old and I’ve always believed his killing a part of a greater conspiracy. So yeah on one level his children should get something. However, given the man’s contributions their behavior is unseemly. Yet although I admire him so, the man is no saint and it is necessary to know this. Humans must stop looking for saints and start taking responsibility for their own acts and actions. The reputation of saints can be tarnished, but the courage of a person, flawed as we all are, can inspire us all to honor their humanity.
GWLSM:
Arent the children entitiled to their fathers work? He would want them taken care of. Although if he was the man I think him to be he would also want them to stand on their own feet.
Do his works belong to the public or are they private works? Did he will them to posterity or to his family?
I read some of his letters from the jail, they were the thoughts of a great mind.
MLK was a great man with great vision. Apparently his offspring did not inherit this but instead a sense of entitlement to make money off their father’s work and memory.
Their preference to make money from his accomplishments rather than their own do not speak well to who they have become in adulthood.
Lucky for them they had a famous father whose work can support them so well.
Well said Mike
MLK was one of the truly great people of the twentieth century.
However, as much as we’d like it to be otherwise really great people aren’t necessarily perfect people. See life of Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Ben Franklin and Abe lincoln, etc., etc. etc.
We need to celebrate a person’s great acts, while not turning that person into an inhuman idol. All humans are flawed and even the best have their moments of ignominy. Also too, there is little evidence that the progeny of great people share in their progenitors greatness.
‘King himself reportedly ran out and made the claim on the speech himself, which diminishes his stature.’
Which King are we referring to here? Everyone in this article has the last name King, so some disambiguation would be appreciated. (The way I read it, it sounds like the King that gave the speech.)
I thought it was now do you want to “Super Size” it. But I see it is still only the “King Size” meal. Alas, greed and wantonness, never been a problem before.
Two words:
Public Figure.
Good luck with that and don’t let your greed show too much, King Children.