4 ms·

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:

by 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!"
  - bjornsing 15y ago
    This is to me the most surprising aspect of this whole story, that Jones (and King?) at the height of a historic moment was thinking about... copyright. I can't believe that there was a commercial motivation behind this at the time, yet Jones really gives that impression in the interview.
sambeau 15y ago
You have just posted exactly what I was wanting to post although you probably said it clearer than I would have. I always have the same reaction when I see a quote attributed to an actor in a film rather than the writer of the film, too. Similarly comedians (like Bob Hope) are often attributed for the work of gag writers. It's an interesting that this seldom happens in theatre, music or literature but often happens in film, comedy and speeches. I wonder why this is? Is it simply that we assume live speakers to be speaking off-the-cuff and the same translates to film? If so then why don't we do the same for Theatre?
- ucr 15y ago
  Theater, music, and literature tend to appeal to a "higher" class of people than film, comedy, and speaches. This higher class might care more and be more knowledgable about the subtelties of attribution.
  - jordan0day 15y ago
    No, I think you're creating a class distinction where it's completely unnecessary (and a weird thought to even have, I think). Theater, music (I'll assume we're not talking about "popular" music, but something more like classical music here), and literature tend to have known authors, and tend to have a wide variety of performances. (Although literature is weird to include in this list, I think). Film, comedy (since it's differentiated from theater and film here, let's say stand-up comedy) and speeches have known performers. Authors in film are sometimes relatively well-known, but I think attributions to actors rather than characters in films aren't that common.
- adestefan 15y ago
  Most popular music is not written by the person who performed it. Even prolific singer/songwriters have performed works that were written by other people that have gone on to become smash hits. For theater, part of the reason may be that most theatrical productions are performed by numerous actors. Just think of how many Hamlets there have been over the years. Even modern theater is usually performed by numerous groups. Given this, it's pretty easy to say that the "definitive" work is the actual written play. However, when it comes to movies the "definitive" work is seen as the performance by the one actor that was in the movie.
whatusername 15y ago
Remember though that sometimes it can go both ways. There's an interesting article here on the Redfern Speech (Probably the best political speech in Australia's history): http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/on-that-historic-day-in-redfern-the-words-i-spoke-were-mine-20100825-13s5w.html http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/on-that-historic-day-... "The point of this article is to make clear Watson was not the author of the speech. The sentiments of the speech, that is, the core of its authority and authorship, were mine. I had discussed with Watson on dozens of occasions how non-indigenous Australia could never make good our relationship with indigenous people until we came clean about the history."
justincormack 15y ago
Presumably though it was a "work for hire" so MLK would own the copyright?
kahirsch 15y ago
When a speechwriter writes a speech for a particular person, at that person's direction, it is normally a work-for-hire or employee situation, at the speechwriter does not retain the copyright. The speaker has moral and legal responsibility for the words that come out of his mouth. This is a well-known principle, and it was even mentioned in a Supreme Court decision last year: "Even when a speechwriter drafts a speech, the content is entirely within the control of the person who delivers it. And it is the speaker who takes credit—or blame—for what is ultimately said." Also, King improvised the "I have a dream" and "Let freedom ring" parts--based on previously existing phrases. This page shows the differences between the prepared and delivered remarks: http://xroads.virginia.edu/~public/civilrights/a0129.html http://xroads.virginia.edu/~public/civilrights/a0129.html
- moldbug 15y ago
  Of course. I certainly wouldn't take anything away from Dr. King's ability to improvise, based on previously existing phrases. I could even believe that he changed some words, etc, in the strenuous editing process described. The principle that the ghostwriter does not exist is certainly a well-known principle. It may even be a legal principle. The Supreme Court may endorse it unanimously - the Pope, himself, declare it infallibly correct. This doesn't necessarily make it a true, valid, good or appropriate principle, however. For instance, there is no real trace of this species of professional ventriloquist in any century but the 20th - and very little before the middle 20th. The first US president to use ghostwriters routinely was FDR, and his listeners were by no means regularly reminded of the practice. In previous eras, the idea that any public figure, other than an actual actor, would be reciting someone else's words, would have been thought ridiculous and pathetic. Pitt the Younger didn't employ a speechwriter. Nor did Gladstone, Cromwell, Lincoln, Elizabeth I, etc, etc.
  - kahirsch 15y ago
    > For instance, there is no real trace of this species of professional ventriloquist in any century but the 20th There's nothing new about speechwriting. Antiphon of Rhamnus(480–411 BC) was a professional speechwriter. Calling them ventriloquists entirely misses the point. The speaker is the one responsible for the words. He doesn't read whatever is put in front of him. He directs the speechwriter to write what the speaker wants to say and is responsible for accepting, rejecting, or modifying it. George Washington and Andrew Jackson did read others words as their own. Although Lincoln wrote his own speeches, he circulated drafts for comment and incorporated ideas from those comments.

by moldbug 15y ago

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!"
- bjornsing 15y ago
  This is to me the most surprising aspect of this whole story, that Jones (and King?) at the height of a historic moment was thinking about... copyright. I can't believe that there was a commercial motivation behind this at the time, yet Jones really gives that impression in the interview.

sambeau 15y ago

You have just posted exactly what I was wanting to post although you probably said it clearer than I would have. I always have the same reaction when I see a quote attributed to an actor in a film rather than the writer of the film, too. Similarly comedians (like Bob Hope) are often attributed for the work of gag writers. It's an interesting that this seldom happens in theatre, music or literature but often happens in film, comedy and speeches. I wonder why this is? Is it simply that we assume live speakers to be speaking off-the-cuff and the same translates to film? If so then why don't we do the same for Theatre?

ucr 15y ago
Theater, music, and literature tend to appeal to a "higher" class of people than film, comedy, and speaches. This higher class might care more and be more knowledgable about the subtelties of attribution.
- jordan0day 15y ago
  No, I think you're creating a class distinction where it's completely unnecessary (and a weird thought to even have, I think). Theater, music (I'll assume we're not talking about "popular" music, but something more like classical music here), and literature tend to have known authors, and tend to have a wide variety of performances. (Although literature is weird to include in this list, I think). Film, comedy (since it's differentiated from theater and film here, let's say stand-up comedy) and speeches have known performers. Authors in film are sometimes relatively well-known, but I think attributions to actors rather than characters in films aren't that common.
adestefan 15y ago
Most popular music is not written by the person who performed it. Even prolific singer/songwriters have performed works that were written by other people that have gone on to become smash hits. For theater, part of the reason may be that most theatrical productions are performed by numerous actors. Just think of how many Hamlets there have been over the years. Even modern theater is usually performed by numerous groups. Given this, it's pretty easy to say that the "definitive" work is the actual written play. However, when it comes to movies the "definitive" work is seen as the performance by the one actor that was in the movie.

whatusername 15y ago

Remember though that sometimes it can go both ways. There's an interesting article here on the Redfern Speech (Probably the best political speech in Australia's history): http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/on-that-historic-day-in-redfern-the-words-i-spoke-were-mine-20100825-13s5w.html http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/on-that-historic-day-... "The point of this article is to make clear Watson was not the author of the speech. The sentiments of the speech, that is, the core of its authority and authorship, were mine. I had discussed with Watson on dozens of occasions how non-indigenous Australia could never make good our relationship with indigenous people until we came clean about the history."

justincormack 15y ago

Presumably though it was a "work for hire" so MLK would own the copyright?

kahirsch 15y ago

When a speechwriter writes a speech for a particular person, at that person's direction, it is normally a work-for-hire or employee situation, at the speechwriter does not retain the copyright. The speaker has moral and legal responsibility for the words that come out of his mouth. This is a well-known principle, and it was even mentioned in a Supreme Court decision last year: "Even when a speechwriter drafts a speech, the content is entirely within the control of the person who delivers it. And it is the speaker who takes credit—or blame—for what is ultimately said." Also, King improvised the "I have a dream" and "Let freedom ring" parts--based on previously existing phrases. This page shows the differences between the prepared and delivered remarks: http://xroads.virginia.edu/~public/civilrights/a0129.html http://xroads.virginia.edu/~public/civilrights/a0129.html

moldbug 15y ago
Of course. I certainly wouldn't take anything away from Dr. King's ability to improvise, based on previously existing phrases. I could even believe that he changed some words, etc, in the strenuous editing process described. The principle that the ghostwriter does not exist is certainly a well-known principle. It may even be a legal principle. The Supreme Court may endorse it unanimously - the Pope, himself, declare it infallibly correct. This doesn't necessarily make it a true, valid, good or appropriate principle, however. For instance, there is no real trace of this species of professional ventriloquist in any century but the 20th - and very little before the middle 20th. The first US president to use ghostwriters routinely was FDR, and his listeners were by no means regularly reminded of the practice. In previous eras, the idea that any public figure, other than an actual actor, would be reciting someone else's words, would have been thought ridiculous and pathetic. Pitt the Younger didn't employ a speechwriter. Nor did Gladstone, Cromwell, Lincoln, Elizabeth I, etc, etc.
- kahirsch 15y ago
  > For instance, there is no real trace of this species of professional ventriloquist in any century but the 20th There's nothing new about speechwriting. Antiphon of Rhamnus(480–411 BC) was a professional speechwriter. Calling them ventriloquists entirely misses the point. The speaker is the one responsible for the words. He doesn't read whatever is put in front of him. He directs the speechwriter to write what the speaker wants to say and is responsible for accepting, rejecting, or modifying it. George Washington and Andrew Jackson did read others words as their own. Although Lincoln wrote his own speeches, he circulated drafts for comment and incorporated ideas from those comments.