4 ms·

How can you copyright that? If it is, it should be under creative commons.

sp332 15y ago
In the USA (and most other jurisdictions, really) as soon as you write it down, you have the copyright on it. You also have some control over "derivative works" including any copies of the "performance" of the speech. In music, for example, you would need to pay royalties to the songwriter for publicly playing a recording of their song, no matter who actually sang the song.
- ck2 15y ago
  I'm kind of surprised congress didn't try to retroactively copyright the Declaration of Independence and Gettysburg Address and force textbook publishers to pay royalties.
  - sp332 15y ago
    Those were works made by the government, so they're automatically in the public domain. I don't see why you're against Mr. King having the copyright on the speech he wrote and gave?
    - ck2 15y ago
      MLK said those words to move governments and their people, to everyone and anyone that would listen. Some things are too important to lock down and copyright, at least not until 2038.
      - anamax 15y ago
        With copyright, he/his heirs get to decide how it can be used, such as selling Coke. (They didn't have to decide "sell Coke".) > Some things are too important to lock down and copyright, at least not until 2038. And the copyright law language embodying that principle is?
        henrikschroder 15y ago
        It doesn't exist in copyright law, but may be it should? If enough people think it should be, we can write it down and make it law.
        anamax 15y ago
        I was unclear. I wasn't asking for an existing law that implements your idea. I was asking for language that does. > If enough people think it should be, we can write it down and make it law. Oh really? If enough people think that pi should be 3, can we pass a law and it will be so? There are lots of things that people want that can't be codified with the desired properties. This is something that looks (to me) to be on the edge. How about some other examples? (If it's just "I have a dream", we can pass specific legislation.)
  - brudgers 15y ago
    Laws are protected by copyright and documents incorporated by reference into the law may be placed online. The model building codes which are both incorporated by reference into many laws and are protected by copyright as model building codes, provided the test case. Veeck v SBCCI http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/293_F3d_791.htm http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/293_F3d_791.htm
- pbhjpbhj 15y ago
  USA was just about the last place to accede to the international treaties on copyright, wherein copyright is granted at the time of creation of 'a work'. You don't have to fix the work in any particular medium to gain copyright - an expressive, creative mime could be a copyright work; or just a tune you whistled, or a cake, or ...
spacemanaki 15y ago
Well, the article actually explains how it was copyrighted. Basically the King estate sued CBS and the court determined they had a claim. "Typically, a speech broadcast to a large audience on radio and television (and considered instrumental in historic political changes and ranked as the most important speech in 20th century American history) would seem to be a prime candidate for the public domain ..... the judge determined that the speech was a performance distributed to the news media and not the public, making it a “limited” as opposed to a “general” publication. That meant the speech, like other “performances” on CBS, was not in the public domain. That meant the King estate had the right to claim copyright" This is relatively readable: http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19989079.MAN.pdf http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19989079.MAN.pdf
- Maro 15y ago
  So it really started with Martin Luther King's descendants disgracing his heritage.
  - arethuza 15y ago
    Not really, according to the article: "But the copyright dilemma began in December 1963, when King sued Mister Maestro, Inc., and Twentieth Century Fox Records Company to stop the unauthorized sale of records of the 17-minute oration."
    - ck2 15y ago
      There is a difference in going to court to protect it from being misused and sold without his consent to trying to lock it away so it can be a profit making item.
      - rdtsc 15y ago
        It is a case of going overboard. Initially they didn't care probably. But then they saw someone making money off it. So they didn't just go and stop that particular instance but went further and made sure nobody would be able to do it. They saw how money could be made from it, and decided they should be the ones profiting from it.
riffic 15y ago
Creative Commons didn't exist in the 1960s

sp332 15y ago

In the USA (and most other jurisdictions, really) as soon as you write it down, you have the copyright on it. You also have some control over "derivative works" including any copies of the "performance" of the speech. In music, for example, you would need to pay royalties to the songwriter for publicly playing a recording of their song, no matter who actually sang the song.

ck2 15y ago
I'm kind of surprised congress didn't try to retroactively copyright the Declaration of Independence and Gettysburg Address and force textbook publishers to pay royalties.
- sp332 15y ago
  Those were works made by the government, so they're automatically in the public domain. I don't see why you're against Mr. King having the copyright on the speech he wrote and gave?
  - ck2 15y ago
    MLK said those words to move governments and their people, to everyone and anyone that would listen. Some things are too important to lock down and copyright, at least not until 2038.
    - anamax 15y ago
      With copyright, he/his heirs get to decide how it can be used, such as selling Coke. (They didn't have to decide "sell Coke".) > Some things are too important to lock down and copyright, at least not until 2038. And the copyright law language embodying that principle is?
      - henrikschroder 15y ago
        It doesn't exist in copyright law, but may be it should? If enough people think it should be, we can write it down and make it law.
        anamax 15y ago
        I was unclear. I wasn't asking for an existing law that implements your idea. I was asking for language that does. > If enough people think it should be, we can write it down and make it law. Oh really? If enough people think that pi should be 3, can we pass a law and it will be so? There are lots of things that people want that can't be codified with the desired properties. This is something that looks (to me) to be on the edge. How about some other examples? (If it's just "I have a dream", we can pass specific legislation.)
- brudgers 15y ago
  Laws are protected by copyright and documents incorporated by reference into the law may be placed online. The model building codes which are both incorporated by reference into many laws and are protected by copyright as model building codes, provided the test case. Veeck v SBCCI http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/293_F3d_791.htm http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/293_F3d_791.htm
pbhjpbhj 15y ago
USA was just about the last place to accede to the international treaties on copyright, wherein copyright is granted at the time of creation of 'a work'. You don't have to fix the work in any particular medium to gain copyright - an expressive, creative mime could be a copyright work; or just a tune you whistled, or a cake, or ...

spacemanaki 15y ago

Well, the article actually explains how it was copyrighted. Basically the King estate sued CBS and the court determined they had a claim. "Typically, a speech broadcast to a large audience on radio and television (and considered instrumental in historic political changes and ranked as the most important speech in 20th century American history) would seem to be a prime candidate for the public domain ..... the judge determined that the speech was a performance distributed to the news media and not the public, making it a “limited” as opposed to a “general” publication. That meant the speech, like other “performances” on CBS, was not in the public domain. That meant the King estate had the right to claim copyright" This is relatively readable: http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19989079.MAN.pdf http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19989079.MAN.pdf

Maro 15y ago
So it really started with Martin Luther King's descendants disgracing his heritage.
- arethuza 15y ago
  Not really, according to the article: "But the copyright dilemma began in December 1963, when King sued Mister Maestro, Inc., and Twentieth Century Fox Records Company to stop the unauthorized sale of records of the 17-minute oration."
  - ck2 15y ago
    There is a difference in going to court to protect it from being misused and sold without his consent to trying to lock it away so it can be a profit making item.
    - rdtsc 15y ago
      It is a case of going overboard. Initially they didn't care probably. But then they saw someone making money off it. So they didn't just go and stop that particular instance but went further and made sure nobody would be able to do it. They saw how money could be made from it, and decided they should be the ones profiting from it.

riffic 15y ago

Creative Commons didn't exist in the 1960s