6 ms·

FWIW, King's speech contains close to 40% repurposed or borrowed material (from the Declaration of Independence, the song "My Country 'Tis of Thee," cribs from

FWIW, King's speech contains close to 40% repurposed or borrowed material (from the Declaration of Independence, the song "My Country 'Tis of Thee," cribs from previous speeches by Archibald Carey, etc.). I say this not to diminish the accomplishment, triumph, or historical significance of Dr. King's famous speech, but rather, to raise the point that it's a very nuanced copyright matter. Am I allowed to copyright a work derived from a collage of other people's works? If I incorporated one of your posts into a blog post of mine, could I copyright the entirety of the blog post? According to the letter of the law, King's estate should have been entitled only to copyright the portions of the "I Have a Dream" speech that contained 100% original material [1]. Yet these are not the most recognizable or famous portions of the speech, and they're not the portions King's estate has often licensed out to advertisers, etc. Almost all of the words most famously associated with the "I Have a Dream" speech are borrowed from other source material. And, unless I'm missing something -- I'm not a lawyer, so that's possible -- they should not have been granted to King's estate in the first place. Perhaps the current laws on the books took effect after that granting? [1]From 17 U.S.C. SS 103(b): "The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material. The copyright in such work is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting material."

Symmetry 15y ago
That's "Does not imply any _exclusive_ right to the preexisting materiel". The entire derived work is still copyrighted to the extent that the author exercised creative judgement while composing or arranging it, whether or not all the components are copyrighted independently[1]. The law you quoted just says that you don't suddenly acquire copyright on the components you used in creating your work. [1] IANAL EDIT: s/That/That's/
- jonnathanson 15y ago
  Great clarification. Thank you!
loumf 15y ago
Two of those citations were in the public domain -- I don't know Carey, but does cribbing means wholesale copying or similar sentiment? If he says the "same thing" as Carey but in his own words, then it's a new work.
moldbug 15y ago
Ironically, MLK was not the actual author of the "Dream" speech, which was written by King's regular speechwriters, Stanley Levison and Clarence B. Jones.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Have_a_Dream#Speech_title_and_the_writing_process http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Have_a_Dream#Speech_title_and...). It's an interesting comment on our society that it prefers to attribute this type of artistic work to the performer, rather than the actual writer. Perhaps future generations will see MLK simply as the man who read Stanley Levison's great speeches, or Obama as the actor who brought Jon Favreau alive. We give props to Yo-Yo Ma for a great performance of Bach, too, but we don't talk about "Ma's fugue." And there's a very well-developed system for distinguishing between composition and performance copyrights...
- bsk26 15y ago
  from your link, "The speech was drafted with the assistance of Stanley Levison and Clarence Benjamin Jones[12] in Riverdale, New York City." "written" and "drafted with assistance" arn't quite the same thing. Though imo it's a silly point regardless.
  - sambeau 15y ago
    It is on the record that the speech was written by them rather than written "with their assistance". Obviously MLK would have had input (and veto). There was an interesting interview with one of them on British TV last year and he said as much particularly he claimed the "I have a dream" part.
  - moldbug 15y ago
    No, they're not quite the same thing. "Drafted with assistance" is a coy, euphemistic way to say "written by." Here's Jones' own recollection of the process (http://nexoscapital.com/articles_pdf/TheManWho_06-04.pdf http://nexoscapital.com/articles_pdf/TheManWho_06-04.pdf). With some cuts: When King headed to Atlanta just days before the march, Jones and Levison stayed in New York to craft the speech. They titled it "Normalcy -- Never Again." After three drafts, they got a copy to King, who made crucial substantive changes. Then, on the evening before the event, they all rendezvoused in the Willard Hotel, in Washington, DC. King, in essence, held court in the lobby and listened to all his key advisers' suggestions. "Martin kept saying, 'Clarence, are you taking notes?' Jones recalls. And I said, 'Yes.' We both kinda rolled our eyes at each other. The other leaders were determined to tell Martin what to say and how to say it.' "I visited Martin in his hotel suite that evening," Andrew Young remembers. "Martin was working away, editing the speech text, desperate to find the exact right word for every sentence. Clarence was coming and going, giving Martin encouragement and ideas." By five A.M., King's speech had been mimeographed and was being passed out to the press. When informed two hours later of the document's dissemination, Jones put an immediate halt to it. "I called Martin in his room and said, 'You know, this could be a major speech, and I'm concerned that you are protective of the ownership of this. So we've got to be sure it's not published... don't give up the copyright.' Little did I anticipate that my act of moderate wisdom would be deemed as the most prescient service I rendered for King." Jones roots around his office and eventually produces the original 1963 copyright application for the "I Have a Dream" address. Jones had ensured that the speech would not become part of the public domain but would instead belong to King and, eventually, his heirs. "Whenever oral recordings or republications of the speech are sold without permission from the King Estate," Jones boasts, "a lawsuit occurs." When King finished the speech, he came over and shook his cohort's hand. "You was smoking," a euphoric Jones told him. "The words was so hot they was just burning off the page!"
cynicalkane 15y ago
A lawyer or copyright expert can correct me if I'm wrong, but a sufficiently novel use of public work, or fair use of private work, can be copyrighted. So the original source material doesn't belong to the King estate, but its use in the context of the speech does. If I make a collage of other people's works, the other works still belong to them, but the way I put them together belongs to me. Actually, this doesn't seem terribly "nuanced".
- lutorm 15y ago
  I think the point being made was that you can only do this if the owners of those works let you (or you intend to claim fair use). If they had been required to license all works that were incorporated, that would likely have severely changed the speech, so the fact that it is what it is is largely due to the fact that they were able to lift all that material. Yet that same opportunity is now being denied others.
  - DrJokepu 15y ago
    Indeed the copyright status of derivative works is somewhat controversial. Perhaps one of the most famous examples of the issue is The Grey Album by Danger Mouse (2004) which heavily sampled both The Beatles and Jay-Z. EMI was very keen on stopping the distribution of the (then) unknown, underground album, however they have given up eventually after facing widespread public outrage.

Symmetry 15y ago

That's "Does not imply any _exclusive_ right to the preexisting materiel". The entire derived work is still copyrighted to the extent that the author exercised creative judgement while composing or arranging it, whether or not all the components are copyrighted independently[1]. The law you quoted just says that you don't suddenly acquire copyright on the components you used in creating your work. [1] IANAL EDIT: s/That/That's/

jonnathanson 15y ago
Great clarification. Thank you!

loumf 15y ago

Two of those citations were in the public domain -- I don't know Carey, but does cribbing means wholesale copying or similar sentiment? If he says the "same thing" as Carey but in his own words, then it's a new work.

moldbug 15y ago

Ironically, MLK was not the actual author of the "Dream" speech, which was written by King's regular speechwriters, Stanley Levison and Clarence B. Jones.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Have_a_Dream#Speech_title_and_the_writing_process http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Have_a_Dream#Speech_title_and...). It's an interesting comment on our society that it prefers to attribute this type of artistic work to the performer, rather than the actual writer. Perhaps future generations will see MLK simply as the man who read Stanley Levison's great speeches, or Obama as the actor who brought Jon Favreau alive. We give props to Yo-Yo Ma for a great performance of Bach, too, but we don't talk about "Ma's fugue." And there's a very well-developed system for distinguishing between composition and performance copyrights...

bsk26 15y ago
from your link, "The speech was drafted with the assistance of Stanley Levison and Clarence Benjamin Jones[12] in Riverdale, New York City." "written" and "drafted with assistance" arn't quite the same thing. Though imo it's a silly point regardless.
- sambeau 15y ago
  It is on the record that the speech was written by them rather than written "with their assistance". Obviously MLK would have had input (and veto). There was an interesting interview with one of them on British TV last year and he said as much particularly he claimed the "I have a dream" part.
- moldbug 15y ago
  No, they're not quite the same thing. "Drafted with assistance" is a coy, euphemistic way to say "written by." Here's Jones' own recollection of the process (http://nexoscapital.com/articles_pdf/TheManWho_06-04.pdf http://nexoscapital.com/articles_pdf/TheManWho_06-04.pdf). With some cuts: When King headed to Atlanta just days before the march, Jones and Levison stayed in New York to craft the speech. They titled it "Normalcy -- Never Again." After three drafts, they got a copy to King, who made crucial substantive changes. Then, on the evening before the event, they all rendezvoused in the Willard Hotel, in Washington, DC. King, in essence, held court in the lobby and listened to all his key advisers' suggestions. "Martin kept saying, 'Clarence, are you taking notes?' Jones recalls. And I said, 'Yes.' We both kinda rolled our eyes at each other. The other leaders were determined to tell Martin what to say and how to say it.' "I visited Martin in his hotel suite that evening," Andrew Young remembers. "Martin was working away, editing the speech text, desperate to find the exact right word for every sentence. Clarence was coming and going, giving Martin encouragement and ideas." By five A.M., King's speech had been mimeographed and was being passed out to the press. When informed two hours later of the document's dissemination, Jones put an immediate halt to it. "I called Martin in his room and said, 'You know, this could be a major speech, and I'm concerned that you are protective of the ownership of this. So we've got to be sure it's not published... don't give up the copyright.' Little did I anticipate that my act of moderate wisdom would be deemed as the most prescient service I rendered for King." Jones roots around his office and eventually produces the original 1963 copyright application for the "I Have a Dream" address. Jones had ensured that the speech would not become part of the public domain but would instead belong to King and, eventually, his heirs. "Whenever oral recordings or republications of the speech are sold without permission from the King Estate," Jones boasts, "a lawsuit occurs." When King finished the speech, he came over and shook his cohort's hand. "You was smoking," a euphoric Jones told him. "The words was so hot they was just burning off the page!"

cynicalkane 15y ago

A lawyer or copyright expert can correct me if I'm wrong, but a sufficiently novel use of public work, or fair use of private work, can be copyrighted. So the original source material doesn't belong to the King estate, but its use in the context of the speech does. If I make a collage of other people's works, the other works still belong to them, but the way I put them together belongs to me. Actually, this doesn't seem terribly "nuanced".

lutorm 15y ago
I think the point being made was that you can only do this if the owners of those works let you (or you intend to claim fair use). If they had been required to license all works that were incorporated, that would likely have severely changed the speech, so the fact that it is what it is is largely due to the fact that they were able to lift all that material. Yet that same opportunity is now being denied others.
- DrJokepu 15y ago
  Indeed the copyright status of derivative works is somewhat controversial. Perhaps one of the most famous examples of the issue is The Grey Album by Danger Mouse (2004) which heavily sampled both The Beatles and Jay-Z. EMI was very keen on stopping the distribution of the (then) unknown, underground album, however they have given up eventually after facing widespread public outrage.