MLK Children Abusing IP Law (Again) To Try To Squeeze Money Out Of Anyone Who Honors Him

from the so-sad dept

Thu, May 21st 2009 2:29pm — Mike Masnick

We've discussed, in the past, the rather sad propensity of Martin Luther King Jr.'s estate to aggressively abuse copyright law to stop people from honoring the slain civil rights leader. The latest is that Stephen Spielberg has signed up to do a biopic of MLK Jr. Now, to film a biography, you don't need any rights from the person or their heirs -- but sometimes moviemakers still buy the unnecessary "rights" in order to have a closer working relationship with folks who have more knowledge or info about the person or events that are being filmed. That appears to be what happened here, where Dreamworks licensed the rights to make the movie -- including "licensing" some of King's famous speeches. However, some of Kings children are apparently threatening to sue over this, claiming they had no input in the deal and this is a violation of their intellectual property rights.

Of course, this also highlights a fun point for those who pitch the idea that copyright should last forever and descend to the heirs of the content creator. As the ownership gets spread out among younger generations, getting them to agree on anything will be quite unlikely. In any case, it's a sad "legacy" the MLK estate is leaving here, concerning the overly aggressive "protection" of copyrights against those who clearly wish to honor the man's own legacy.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: biography, copyright, martin luther king jr., stephen spielberg

34 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

DJ, 21 May 2009 @ 2:45pm

On the count of "Sue"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DJ, 21 May 2009 @ 2:46pm

Wait for it....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Freedom, 21 May 2009 @ 3:08pm

Greed....
Entitlement mentality at its best.

I highly doubt that MLK dream was for copyright entitlement for his children and/or relatives.

Freedom
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Augustus Gloop, 21 May 2009 @ 3:19pm

Oompa Loompa Song
Thank you for bringing this to my attention. A bratty child is still a brat if they are 5 years old or 50. I'd fully support Mr. Spielberg if he decided to just drop the entire production.

The most difficult part for me to comprehend is the idea that if the Estate had a collective IQ above an icechest, they would see that such a movie would give them numerous speaking opportunities. Benefactors of the MLK estate need to get back to the office and work and quit trying to cash in their Willy Wonka's Golden Ticket. But whatever.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DJ, 21 May 2009 @ 3:24pm

I have a reverie!
A fanciful hope, if you will, of sometime in the future, when our blood legacy shall no longer be required to earn money by way of their own devices, but by the content of the works of their heritage.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
tack, 21 May 2009 @ 3:40pm

Stereotypes
dont make themselves up.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DJ, 21 May 2009 @ 3:55pm

Re: Stereotypes
I hereby call for Mike to remove that post by "tack". Not only did it have nothing to do with the topic, but it was hateful, unproductive, and otherwise uncalled-for.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
agree with tack, 21 May 2009 @ 4:12pm

Re: Stereotypes
So true, I remember having to deal with this crap when I lived in ATL and worked downtown. Nothing but a bunch of greedy people. They have all but rubbed his good deeds into the ground acting the way they do.

So sterotypical no matter what light to shine on it or who says it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 May 2009 @ 4:38pm

Shame
I wonder how ashamed of his decendents Dr. King would be on a scale of 1 to 10? On one hand, we elect a President of color, and on the other hand Dr. King's own children act like the greedy, entitled elitists that he wanted society to overcome. We've really come full circle, eh? That's progress!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 May 2009 @ 4:45pm

claiming they had no input in the deal and this is a violation of their intellectual property rights.
claiming they had no input in the deal and this is a violation of their intellectual property rights.

their intellectual property rights.

wtf did they create?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Poster, 21 May 2009 @ 4:57pm

MLK's works
Free at last, free at last, in 2150, they'll be free at last!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Poster, 21 May 2009 @ 4:58pm

Re: claiming they had no input in the deal and this is a violation of their intellectual property rights.
Their sense of self-entitlement.

They didn't make jack; Dr. King did, and these jerkoffs are just trying to profit off of it.

This is why copyright should end at death.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Luc Boardwalk, 21 May 2009 @ 5:35pm

That's different.
The linked article is the only one I've read on this matter. I don't see where it says Bernice and MLK III are threatening legal action against the movie studio. The way I read it, they have a long-running dispute with their brother over his handling of the estate.

That's different, don't you think?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike (profile), 21 May 2009 @ 5:37pm

Re: Re: Stereotypes
I hereby call for Mike to remove that post by "tack". Not only did it have nothing to do with the topic, but it was hateful, unproductive, and otherwise uncalled-for.

As obnoxious as that post is, I'd rather we counter such bigotry with a response that shows bigotry for what it is. Simply deleting a bigot's post only reinforces their ideas that they are right. I agree that the post is hateful and uncalled for, but I don't believe in censorship. I believe in exposing bigotry for being bigotry.

As for tack's original comment: just what "stereotype" are you talking about? The stereotype of MLK Jr. is that he was a brilliant man, a charismatic leader who, in the face of amazing danger helped lead and inspire an entire generation. What's wrong with that?

I'm guessing, however, you mean a negative stereotype associated by race (though, for the life of me, I can't think of any particular stereotype that anyone of any creed, color, religion, gender or race is "dumb about copyright law.")

Having spent plenty of time discussing these issues, I can tell you that people on all sides of this issue seem to be pretty evenly distributed in terms of creed, color, religion, ethnicity gender or race -- and to assume that any "type" of person is somehow more clueless about these issues makes you look so much worse than anything King's heirs have done.

Being an ignorant bigot is no way to go through life.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Overcast, 21 May 2009 @ 5:39pm

I don't see where it says Bernice and MLK III are threatening legal action against the movie studio

You have a point, if your brother sold your mom's car (assuming he has power of attorney, etc) or something, you couldn't very well sue the buyer of the car, assuming the title change and all was legal. Of course... you could sue your brother in a civil suit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Luc Boardwalk, 21 May 2009 @ 5:41pm

I believe Mr. Tack is trying to associate African-Americans with an unearned sense of entitlement. In a year that has brought us so many examples of wealthy white businessmen who believe they "earn" their multimillion dollar compensation packages, his attempt seems off the mark.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mojo Bone, 21 May 2009 @ 5:49pm

If a great deal of money is to be made based on a man's life's work in a cause for which he died, how do you figure that the man's estate is owed nothing? Do squabbles and questionable behavior on the part of some heirs justify this? I think not.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 May 2009 @ 6:07pm

Re: Re: claiming they had no input in the deal and this is a violation of their intellectual property rights.
the problem with copyright ending at death is the fact that people would be killed just because the publisher doesn't want to pay royalties anymore.

think it wouldn't happen? I'm not sure what world you live in.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
walteranonymous, 21 May 2009 @ 6:37pm

Re: Re: Re: claiming they had no input in the deal and this is a violation of their intellectual property rights.
Whoot! Black helicopter alert! And, they'll chemically sterilize all your offspring, thus preventing future generations from collecting. Brilliant! So, tell us all, what color is the sky on the planet you seem to think you live on? Let me guess......polka dot? candy striped? Please, your adoring public (you know, the ones on thorazine and in restraints) want to know. BTW, Nursey says it's time for your meds. Get thee hence!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 May 2009 @ 9:26pm

This appears to be a contract matter between siblings of Mr. and Mrs. King, but all wrapped up in a nice "copyright bow" trying to make it appear as if once more copyright is a "vile and evil villan". Perhaps at times it is, but this does not appear to be such an instance.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jack, 21 May 2009 @ 11:30pm

Wow, libertarians are racists? Who'd have thunk it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dan, 22 May 2009 @ 12:17am

The obvious response and ultimate solution to this kind of greed is to everything remotely related to MLK. This will make the MLK brand value look like a Lehman Bos. balance sheet. This is how greed should be repaid. MLK must be spinning in his grave like a high speed lathe over this.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 May 2009 @ 12:42am

Re:
I don't know where the libertarian reference came from or why you believe them to be racist.

We're discussing another thing: The fact that one of the most Acclaimed Movie Studios wants to create a production that honors Dr. MLK and apparently a deal was signed but outside influences believe they can pervert the process.

If you have followed the links to this story and do some additional research yourself on "MLK Legal Disputes" (Google is your friend in accomplishing this) you'll see that the production is probably being held up by some internal family dispute, as Google indicates there seems to be a repetitive family history of these types of disputes.

Additionally, I can't think of many other directors outside of Steven Spielberg, or Dreamworks that could accurately portray the story in a positive light that would also have the resources to make it work.

Again, it appears this is a family dispute that is best solved outside of our already over-taxed legal system. It's quite sad that you believe this is a racial issue. Granted, I may be a white Libertarian Scandinavian, I also knocked on doors for Obama. Why? Because there was no drama.

I hate drama. Make drama, You'll loose the support. That's what I believe Mike is trying to say.

Spielberg should walk away until the family fucking grows up.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 May 2009 @ 6:20am

I HAVE A DREAM.....

That they would just go to hell. What a way to tarnish a great man. Good going!

Fawktards!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Tgeigs, 22 May 2009 @ 6:37am

Re: Re: Re: Stereotypes
"As obnoxious as that post is, I'd rather we counter such bigotry with a response that shows bigotry for what it is. Simply deleting a bigot's post only reinforces their ideas that they are right. I agree that the post is hateful and uncalled for, but I don't believe in censorship. I believe in exposing bigotry for being bigotry."

Wait a second, sir, who in the world says what Tact posted was bigotry? He said stereotypes don't make themselves up and that can be true in a lot of ways. It's a matter of interpretation. If his point is that African Americans are all lazy jackasses, well then yeah, he's a bigot and an assclown to boot. But perhaps it was merely a comment on a systemic cultural problem that many African American communties have had for a long time, which is the instillation of a hardy work ethic and also the instillation that you can "rise above". That seemse to have gone by the wayside in today's poorer African American communities, being replaced by things like "the white man doesn't like me", "the ghetto is cool", and "anything for this fast money, yo". To pretend that doesn't exist perpetuates the problem. Even the Prez has remarked in many of his speeches that the African American community has a serious problem within their ranks, mostly with the issue of fathers being responsible for their children.

"As for tack's original comment: just what "stereotype" are you talking about? The stereotype of MLK Jr. is that he was a brilliant man, a charismatic leader who, in the face of amazing danger helped lead and inspire an entire generation. What's wrong with that?"

Don't play dumb just to counter phantom racism. Stereotypes are about groups, not one brilliant man (and he was ridiculously brilliant). You do a fine job of not impeding on free speech, but blanket mischaracterizations of what was said does NOT asist in the argument.

"Having spent plenty of time discussing these issues, I can tell you that people on all sides of this issue seem to be pretty evenly distributed in terms of creed, color, religion, ethnicity gender or race"

Agreed, that's one of the reasons I like this site, and internet threads in general, because it can take things like racism, sexism, etc. out of the equation and focus on the issue. But pretending that varied systemic problems and issues don't exist within just about every race, creed, color, religion, and gender doesn't help.

I'll be clear: racism is wrong, thinking that certain people don't have equal capacity because of their race is just scientifically stupid. But pretending like there aren't problems unique to race, religion, etc. is equally dumb. One stereotype is that African Americans today have an entitlement issue: slave reparations, affirmative action, welfare, etc. etc. There is a reason that overblown stereotype exists.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lucretious (profile), 22 May 2009 @ 6:55am

Re: Re: Re: Stereotypes
Instead of a long drawn out explanation how about tack is allowed to have an opinion and leave it at that?

don't respond to the hyper-PC crowd, it only encourages stupid panicked responses from people trying to prove how not racist they are.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lucretious (profile), 22 May 2009 @ 6:57am

Re:
grabbing for racial straws, don't you think?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
alphadog, 22 May 2009 @ 7:21am

"Entitlement"

I am so tired of that word. Everyone slings it now as a tool to belittle the opposing dialogue. It's a powerful "strawman" word.

It started with the Right trying to look smart, but now everyone uses it. The Left has an overblown sense of entitlement. Apparently, Wall Street too, now. Unions do. The Catholic Church. Rich white kids. Poor black kids. Anyone left?

"Entitlement" is not a "new thing". Also, it knows no demographic, creed, race, etc.

Can't we just say what it really is: Basic greed?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
GHynson, 22 May 2009 @ 9:45am

What would Jesus Do?
Could you imagine if Jesus was still alive today?
I wonder if he would sue the church for spreading his teachings,...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
musterion, 22 May 2009 @ 9:47am

A good reason why copyright extension is bad.
I think this shows why copyright should expire basically with the life of the author.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The infamous Joe, 22 May 2009 @ 9:49am

Re:
A greedy person wants more and more of whatever he desires, be it money, power, etc. and will use many methods to get it.

An entitled person believes he deserves that which he desires, and expects it to be given to him with little to no work.

They are not the same.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
NullOp, 22 May 2009 @ 12:56pm

MLK
MLK children are just one of the reasons I am embarrassed about being a native Atlantian. Frankly, I believe everything of Dr. King's should be seized and held by the court to keep these money-grubbers out of the picture.

A movie about Dr. King? Did they wait until they thought they had hit the right moment to extract money from as many bleeding-heart-liberals as possible. My advise to anyone considering a movie is to ditch it! You will not get it right even if you try. Those that were there remember it as they want to remember it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch, 22 May 2009 @ 3:45pm

Re:
The man's estate is owned nothing because nobody should have to pay up to make speech (movie, music, book, blog post) about facts.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ABC, 18 Jan 2010 @ 10:31am

if we paying for MLK holiday. ...then I hope we remove today date from our yearly holiday. I respect what he did for the people but it is rediculous to pay for his children.
[ link to this | view in thread ]