[QuadList] Copyright (and other rights) Issues-MLK Estate

[Ted Langdell]

On Jun 7, 2009, at 12:41 PM, COURYHOUSE at aol.com wrote:
> Yep all True Ted .....    Good points...  I ran into the King issue  
> when  was doing a news story and the only resource turned out to be  
> the King site
>
> Ted, Historically do  you remember  when the King issue  became  
> this  restrictive?
>
> Ed the newsman


When the King estate decided to make it so.

And the case turns on the same kind of copyright protection that  
movies and broadcasts can claim protection under, and that is  
"Publication."

Showing a movie in a theater is not "publication" because the audience  
can't take copies of the work (the movie) home with them.  Selling a  
tape or DVD of the same move to the general public, IS publication.

For the short version, see this Wikipedia entry. (See citations  
mentioned, if any... for vetting of accuracy.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estate_of_Martin_Luther_King,_Jr.,_Inc._v._CBS,_Inc 
.

The substance is:  A federal court ruled King's "I have a Dream"  
speech was a "Performance" of an unpublished work, and as such was  
coverable by copyright since the recitation did not constitute  
publication.

King shortly afterward registered the speech with the Copyright  
office. (Not clear whether this was the "as written" or "as delivered"  
version, since King ad-libbed some content.)

Years later, CBS produced a documentary series for A&E, "The 20th  
Century" with Mike Wallace. One segment on "Dr. King and the March on  
Washington" contained CBS archive material of the speech, and used  
about 60 percent of the total speech King delivered, without asking  
for permission to use the material.

The Estate sued in Federal court.  Estate of Martin Luther King, Jr.,  
Inc. v. CBS, Inc., 13 F.Supp.2d 1347 (N.D.Ga.1998)

The district court granted summary judgment to CBS on the ground that  
Dr. King had engaged in a general
publication of the speech, placing it into the public domain.

The King Estate appealed the Summary Judgment, and with one judge of  
three dissenting, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the  
judgement and sent the case back to the lower court for trial:
http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19989079.MAN.pdf

Chief Judge Anderson wrote:

Because there exist genuine issues of material fact as to whether a  
general publication occurred, we
must reverse the district court's grant of summary judgment for CBS.  
It would be inappropriate for us to
address CBS's other arguments, e.g., fair use and the First Amendment,  
because the district court did not
address them, and because the relevant facts may not yet be fully  
developed. Of course, we express no
opinion on the eventual merits of this litigation. The judgment of the  
district court is reversed and remanded
for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

Senior District Judge Cook noted in his concurrence footnotes that in  
other cases:

11The court determined that CBS had a copyright over radio broadcasts  
of "The Amos 'n' Andy Show"
from 1928 to 1948 because the " 'rendering of the performance before  
the microphone cannot be held to be
an abandonment of ownership to it by the proprietor or a dedication of  
it to the public at large,' " quoting
Uproar Co. v. NBC, 8 F.Supp. 358, 362 (D.Mass.1934), modified 81 F.2d  
373 (1st Cir.1936).

12The court determined that CBS had a copyright over a radio  
broadcaster's news announcement
concerning President Kennedy's assassination.

It makes interesting reading, and illuminates some of the mines one  
can tread on when posting material to YouTube or elsewhere.

Joseph Beck, the attorney who represented the King estate in the suit  
against CBS spoke about the case rather extensively in an address that  
shows up as an article in Media Law and Policy Volume X, Number 2:
http://www.nyls.edu/user_files/1/3/4/30/84/88/10MLP3spring1.pdf

(He cites as a witness in another case a "Professor of Parody" at  
Emory College in Atlanta, GA.  Sounds like a degree I should go for.)

Meantime, two of Dr. King's  surviving kids are suing the other who is  
in charge of the King Center and their parents' intellectual property  
over a biography of Coretta Scott King and an "authorized" Stephen  
Spielberg movie about MLK, Jr.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has a raft of stories about that, and  
the license fees for use of Kings words and image paid by the group  
planning a Washington D.C. memorial to King.

http://projects.ajc.com/search/?term=Martin+Luther+King+famil&x=0&y=0

Maybe more than you wanted to know... but to paraphrase the title of a  
vintage television show (shot on film, as I recall)... "You... Asked  
For It!"

Ted

Ted Langdell
Secretary
Skype: 	TedLangdell
e-mail:	ted at quadvideotapegroup.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://quadvideotapegroup.com/pipermail/quadlist_quadvideotapegroup.com/attachments/20090607/d359d2bf/attachment-0005.html>