How Copyright Forced A Filmmaker To Rewrite Martin Luther King's Historic Words
from the copyright,-paraphrasing-and-the-road-to-truthiness dept
Among the most powerful moments of Selma, the new film about the march Martin Luther King, Jr. led in 1965 in support of voting rights for African Americans, are the speeches, sermons, and eulogies King delivered during that tumultuous period. However, the speeches performed by actor David Oyelowo in the film do not contain the actual words spoken by King. This is because the King estate would not license the copyright in the speeches to filmmaker Ava DuVernay. Thus, the King estate's aggressive stance on copyright has literally forced the re-writing of history.
According to the Washington Post, the King estate licensed the film rights to King's speeches to DreamWorks, with Steven Spielberg producing any resulting films. DuVernay said that she never even asked for the rights to King's speeches "because we knew those rights are already gone, they're with Spielberg." She added that she knew that there were strings attached to the rights: "with those rights came a certain collaboration." In other words, the King estate uses its control over the copyright to control how King is portrayed. The Post article suggests that this control has prevented the making of a feature film about King—until now.
In the summer of 2013, when the nation was commemorating the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington, the King estate refused to allow broadcasts of King's "I Have a Dream" speech. At the time, I wrote a blog post questioning the policy justification for one of the most important speeches in American history remaining under copyright 50 years after its delivery, and 45 years after the death of its author. I argued that King did not need the economic incentive provided by copyright protection to write the speech or deliver it so compellingly. I further asserted that copyright protection was not necessary to ensure that the speech remained in distribution 50 years after the March on Washington. I also responded to the argument that royalties from King's speech have financed the work of the Martin Luther King Jr. Foundation promoting civil rights and social justice by noting that funding valuable institutions is not the purpose of copyright. Additionally, the cause of civil rights arguably could be better advanced by the broadest possible dissemination of his speech, rather than by exploiting it to generate revenue for the Foundation.
The same arguments can be made with respect to King's speeches surrounding the march in Selma. King obviously was not motivated by financial gain when he wrote those speeches. Further, copyright protection was not necessary to ensure that the speeches remained available in the decades since. To the contrary, copyright protection prevented the derivative use of those speeches in the film, thereby potentially depriving new audiences of King's message.
The Washington Post's review of Selma suggests that the director Ava DuVernay made a virtue of necessity in response to her inability to secure the rights to the speeches:
"in a brilliant work-around DuVernay approximates [King's] words, allowing viewers to focus on their meaning rather than how literally Oyelowo reproduces them." Likewise, the New York Times' review observes that DuVernay turned her lack of permission to use the speeches into "a chance to see and hear [King] afresh." In the film, King is "less an orator than an organizer" and is "a man trying to navigate his public role, his private life, and the expectations of his allies and friends."
Proponents of long copyright term might point to these reviews as proof of the copyright system working properly. Denied the ability to quote King directly, DuVernay was forced to create her own expression—paraphrases of King's speeches—and her own interpretation of King's life.
At the same time, the Times recognizes that the inability to quote King directly "may be a blow to the film's authenticity." And this is a serious problem, particularly in a world where people are far more likely to learn history from a biopic than from a textbook. The director of a biopic already must compress complex events that unfolded over months (in the case of Selma) or years (in the case of the Alan Turing biopic, The Imitation Game) into two hours. The director must also add dramatic tension in order to sustain audience interest. (For example, Joe Califano, then a member of the Johnson Administration, has accused DuVernay of falsely portraying a series of conflicts between Johnson and King over voting rights, when in fact they agreed with the both the strategy and the tactics for achieving this objective.) The inaccuracies created by this compression and invented dramatic tension should not be compounded by concerns of potential copyright infringement liability.
Fair use is the obvious solution to the problem of copyright constraining the presentation of historical events. In Bouchat v. Baltimore Ravens, discussed in this post, the Fourth Circuit found the National Football League's use of the "Flying B" logo in highlight films to be transformative because the logo was used "as part of the historical record to tell stories of past drafts, major events in Ravens history, and player careers."
The court further stated:
"Were we to require those wishing to produce films and documentaries to receive permission from copyright holders for fleeting factual uses of their works, we would allow those copyright holders to exert enormous influence over new depictions of historical subjects and events. Such a rule would encourage bargaining over the depiction of history by granting copyright holders substantial leverage over select historical facts."
Similarly, in Fox News Network v. TVEyes, discussed in this post, the court concluded that TVEyes' inclusion of clips in a search engine for broadcast television was a transformative use. The court found that "TVEyes' message, ‘this is what they said'—is a very different message from Fox News'—‘this is what you should know or believe.'"
The primary purpose of including King's speeches in the film Selma would be to inform its viewers of what King said and the impact it had on his audience. Although Ava DuVernay almost certainly believed in what King said, and wanted her viewers to believe it too, that purpose would be secondary to educating her viewers about King and his impact on the course of history.
Based on TVEyes and Bouchat, DuVernay would have had a strong fair use defense had she used King's actual words rather than just paraphrased them. Perhaps she (or her lawyers) decided that historical accuracy was not worth the risk of litigation with the King estate. While it appears that DuVernay remained true to both the style and content of King's speeches, the next director might not be so scrupulous. Indeed, an inept paraphrase of one of King's speeches at the Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial in Washington, D.C., made him sound, according to Maya Angelou, "like an arrogant twit." The paraphrase subsequently was removed.
The paraphrasing of Martin Luther King, Jr. puts us on the slippery slope to truthiness. The King estate should be far more worried about people paraphrasing King than quoting him accurately.
Reposted from the Disruptive Competition Project
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: ava duvernay, copyright, culture, fair use, history, martin luther king jr., mlk estate, paraphrasing, selma, speeches
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
The estate doesn't care one bit about 'accuracy', or the preservation of an important bit of history, all they care about is getting paid. If that means forcing anyone who might wish to cover the speeches to either present them as they were, and risk a lawsuit, or take some 'creative licenses' and re-write them, they don't care in the slightest.
They do provide one very important service though, by showing a prime example of why copyright should not last past a person's death. When someone can lock up history and culture like this behind a tollbooth, that's a sign the system is in need of fixing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
so disappointing that such a great man had such petty offspring: kings of moral justice to slaves of mammon in one generation... impressive...
also disappointing, is when directors like this, or people like weird al, essentially GIVE UP their RIGHTS to fair use in order to be 'polite' or some such ridiculous horseshit...
(AS IF the shoe were on the other foot, the holders of the copyright are NOT 'polite' in any way, shape or form...) THEY are HURTING copyright for the rest of us by NOT using the exceptions that are in the law already, much less further the carve out of these exceptions...
weird al is a dick for not using copyright right, AND it then promotes more ignorance of the law and fair use... but hey, he's got his, so fuck y'all...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
But can you provide a better example of your second point than Weird Al? At least he asks permission of the artist/copyright holder before using their work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
He does so purely for personal reasons. Even Weird Al acknowledges that obtaining that permission is not technically necessary, and while I don't think it's fair to say he shouldn't ask permission, I also think that his doing so isn't worthy of praise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is where I think that his actions have a (tiny) bad societal effect: by implying that not asking permission when it is unnecessary is a sign that you are not being a decent human being.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Asking for permission is the problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If people think him asking for permission means you must ask permission, that's a problem of gross ignorance or stupidity on their part, not with anything that Weird Al is doing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
(the same thing mason wheeler said)
the POINT you keep (purposefully) missing, is that weird al et al (hhh) IS one of the few avenues of general information about copyright to 90-99% or more of the public who DON'T hang out at techdirt or otherwise keep abreast of such issues...
so, the general public take some significant portion of *whatever* miniscule interest and knowledge they have about copyright, etc, from the chickenshit approach of weird al, which gives a FALSE and PERVERTED picture of HOW IT SHOULD WORK...
i do not for one second deny him the right to do it 'his way' and BEG for permission (yes, he actually tracked down one singer as she came off stage to BEG for permission to do what he ALREADY HAD THE RIGHT to do; not to mention, he demurred on doing a song or two he did not get 'permission' to do, AGAIN, giving a FALSE impression of the issue)...
i am saying that one of the major practitioners of satire/parody recognized by the public, is giving BAD advice through HIS preferred personal practices...
kids, do NOT do what weird al does: TAKE YOUR RIGHTS and use them (or you will lose them by lamers like weird al deprecating the practice of fair use); don't let ANYONE make you beg or apologize for exercising your rights...
Empire must fall.
the sooner the fall,
the gentler for all...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, yeah, it's not a problem of a convoluted system that's so complicated and illogical that people think they have to ask for permission even for things that are clearly allowed by the letter of the law. It's certainly not that they feel they have to do so anyway even when they are technically allowed, because certain corporations have shown no qualms about attacking people even when they are using things legally. No, it's just stupidity.
Keep telling yourself that, it helps support the other fictions you guys keep pushing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yes, which is why the default copyright terms are 2–3 generations after a creator's death. By that time you have a really good chance that the heirs are more interested in what their ancestor pays than what he wanted, and consequently are least likely to mess with the will of the copyright behemoths.
But the world is changing, and a single generation for turning into mere moneygrabbers is certainly eventually going to be the gold standard. 70 or 95 or 120 or whatever number of years is just playing it safely.
King's heirs are just ahead of their time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as kryptonite is to Superman.
Now I wonder if DC will allow me this fair use...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I remember learning about Dr King and trying to find more information on him in one of these digital encyclopedias.
I remember it not containing the speech because of copyright reasons.
That was 20ish years ago. To this day I still haven't heard the full speech, only the most famous lines that everyone knows.
Fuck yeah, Copyright! Killing knowledge and education since inception. Why doesn't anyone think of the children?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Dec 30th, 2014 @ 6:46am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As to public domain and US copyright I would not go so far as to say abolish the concept; however like most laws they need simplification.
If a law in the US was written like a man page terse and do the point most of these problems would go away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Think of the children" is a meme now, I'm sure he was saying it with tongue in cheek.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
long copyrights
Ditto for patents and no patents for software or living items. Patents should be licensed to all comers at reasonable rates. No patent if government funded.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: long copyrights
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: long copyrights
So how about $0.01 for the first year. Just $0.02 for the second. $0.04 for the third, and so on, forever. Of course once you refuse the next year extension, you cannot get back.
It is not a lot of money, it would fund the cost of the system maintenance (after all why should everyone pay for supporting a monopoly) and protect all those new, poor, emerging artists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Dec 30th, 2014 @ 6:54am
Are you the new morally bankrupt, bat-shit crazy, logically-challenged, fact deprived, civil disrupting, conversation derailing, corporate copyright regime mouthpiece-of-shit internet troll?
How'd I do?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Pirate." "Freetard."
Try to keep up with the latest buzzwords, you squirrel turd. You're cribbing out of the 2012 MPAA playbook.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Jackass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
11 words, and not one of them addressing any kind of reality. A magnificent failure, even by your lofty standards.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The lesson to be learned
I'm not sure of how one is to guard against this sort of thing though. Can you restrict how your copyrights are used in your will? If not, then what can be done to ensure that your wishes are fulfilled?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The lesson to be learned
Put a CC license on it before you die?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The lesson to be learned
Duh, that would do it. Sometimes the perfectly obvious eludes me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The lesson to be learned
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The lesson to be learned
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The lesson to be learned
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The lesson to be learned
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Keep locking up history under copyright. Then only the wealthy will get to see it and you can really lay claim to an ignorant populace.
My Goodness!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I have a dream today.
I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification; one day right there in Alabama, little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as counsel for the lawsuit against anyone daring to quote historically accurate information.
I have a dream today."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is disgusting!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"I am happy to join with you today in what will go down in history as the greatest demonstration for freedom in the history of our nation.
Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand today, signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of their captivity.
But one hundred years later, the Negro still is not free. One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languishing in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land. So we have come here today to dramatize a shameful condition.
In a sense we have come to our nation's capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked "insufficient funds." But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. So we have come to cash this check -- a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice. We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy. Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit path of racial justice. Now is the time to lift our nation from the quick sands of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood. Now is the time to make justice a reality for all of God's children.
It would be fatal for the nation to overlook the urgency of the moment. This sweltering summer of the Negro's legitimate discontent will not pass until there is an invigorating autumn of freedom and equality. Nineteen sixty-three is not an end, but a beginning. Those who hope that the Negro needed to blow off steam and will now be content will have a rude awakening if the nation returns to business as usual. There will be neither rest nor tranquility in America until the Negro is granted his citizenship rights. The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright day of justice emerges.
But there is something that I must say to my people who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice. In the process of gaining our rightful place we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred.
We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force. The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to a distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny. They have come to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom. We cannot walk alone.
As we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall always march ahead. We cannot turn back. There are those who are asking the devotees of civil rights, "When will you be satisfied?" We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality. We can never be satisfied, as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways and the hotels of the cities. We cannot be satisfied as long as the Negro's basic mobility is from a smaller ghetto to a larger one. We can never be satisfied as long as our children are stripped of their selfhood and robbed of their dignity by signs stating "For Whites Only". We cannot be satisfied as long as a Negro in Mississippi cannot vote and a Negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote. No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream.
I am not unmindful that some of you have come here out of great trials and tribulations. Some of you have come fresh from narrow jail cells. Some of you have come from areas where your quest for freedom left you battered by the storms of persecution and staggered by the winds of police brutality. You have been the veterans of creative suffering. Continue to work with the faith that unearned suffering is redemptive.
Go back to Mississippi, go back to Alabama, go back to South Carolina, go back to Georgia, go back to Louisiana, go back to the slums and ghettos of our northern cities, knowing that somehow this situation can and will be changed. Let us not wallow in the valley of despair.
I say to you today, my friends, so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.
I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal."
I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.
I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
I have a dream today.
I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification; one day right there in Alabama, little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.
I have a dream today.
I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together.
This is our hope. This is the faith that I go back to the South with. With this faith we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.
This will be the day when all of God's children will be able to sing with a new meaning, "My country, 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing. Land where my fathers died, land of the pilgrim's pride, from every mountainside, let freedom ring."
And if America is to be a great nation this must become true. So let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire. Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York. Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania!
Let freedom ring from the snowcapped Rockies of Colorado!
Let freedom ring from the curvaceous slopes of California!
But not only that; let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia!
Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee!
Let freedom ring from every hill and molehill of Mississippi. From every mountainside, let freedom ring.
And when this happens, when we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!" "
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I imagine his children would actually prefer to be judged by their skin color, rather than their character actually. The first, they have nothing to do with, and even if they did it still wouldn't change who they are, and so they would be blameless either way, with nothing to be ashamed of.
Judging them on their character though, something they absolutely do control... yeah, they fail pretty utterly there. More interested in cashing in on their father's legacy, than spreading and preserving it.
Judge them by their skin color, and the one doing the judging is the one who has failed. Judge them by their character however, and it is they who have failed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I mean, copyright law is now making it easier to tell lies through omission, something which is much more common in translation work than it should be in actual historical works.
For example, whilst you can paraphrase Shakespeare's or Wilde's works, you lose some of the satirical aspects of the work, and it becomes distorted through the lens of time, something that should be less common in this age of so-called positivity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
KING IS ROLLING IN HIS GRAVE
turning it into a cash cow
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If they wish to monetize it, I don't recall seeing/hearing any commercials informing me where it can be purchased.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
(eg.
http://www.commercialalert.org/issues/culture/dead-celebrities/kings-dream-becomes-commercial )
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"DuVernay said that she never even asked for the rights to King's speeches..."
Um, doesn't this invalidate basically everything? how did she know she would not have been granted permission to use the speeches if she didn't even bother asking?
This is not being forced to change anything, this is not even bothering to inquire.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It was a long-drawn battle to get the King family to consent to even non-commercial publication of (written copies of) his speech for educational and similar uses.
And as the article explains, Spielberg had a prior arrangement (bought in part with his consenting to the King family's participation in and "oversight" of Spielberg's bio-pic project.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Weird Al
The right to parody covers the lyrics and the performance, but not the music score. This is primarily because the score in one of Weird Al's parodies doesn't make fun of the original score; it is the original score.
I believe that Weird Al goes out of his way to get the performer's permission, which he does not have to do. This may be all the previous commenters were talking about, but this may not be clear to someone who was just reading the comments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Weird Al
Do you have a reference for that claim?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Weird Al
I would also like to see some sort of citation to back up this assertion.
I was under the impression that if a court declares a parody song to be fair use, no infringement has occurred, regardless if the musical score has a copyright separate from the lyrics since the actual music would be required to make an effective parody. If you cannot recognize the song being parodied then it's not really a parody of the song.
But, IANAL, so I could be wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It is easy to take pot shots at his estate, as if somehow the administrators are up to no good.
Seems to me that what they are doing is generally in conformance with what MLK did during his lifetime. Pot shots at them are apparently little more than cheap shots.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You'll have to provide a lot more than just "he registered a copyright" if you want to demonstrate that he did the sort of thing his estate is doing with his work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
http://www.leagle.com/decision/1963325224FSupp101_1300
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]