Comment by jonnathanson | Hacker News Reader

Comment by jonnathanson | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

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."

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/

Great clarification. Thank you!

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".

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.

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.

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.

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...).

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...

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.

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.

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). 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!"

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Most popular music is not written by the person who performed it.

I think that varies by genre. It's certainly true around pop music. But I don't think so much for, say, metal.

On the other hand, having recently watched a few episodes of VH1's "Clasic Albums" series (at least I think that's what it was), I was really surprised to see the amount of creative input that came from the album's producers. I was surprised to see that the melody of Kiss's "Beth" was written by the producer, and that Bob Rock did so much with Metallica (unfortunately?) in building the songs for The Black Album, albeit it out of riffs written by the band.

It does vary, but I didn't want to pigeon hole pop. Mostly because it happens in a lot of other genres such as country/wester and even folk. It also occurs more in places such as Nashville, Austin and Memphis where there is a strong songwriting tradition.

I think you're over-analyzing it.

Speechwriters are largely unknown, at least relative to the "performer" -- the same goes for comedy (let's say stand-up comedy since it's differentiated from theater and film in your list), and even film, quite often. On the converse, when you see a performance of "Hamlet", who's better-known? The high school kid bemoaning Horatio, or Shakespeare? I think it's just a convenient shortcut for people to attribute a quote to a performer rather than original author, in cases where the original author may be difficult to discern.

I mean, I can go to imdb.com and find out who wrote the screenplay for "Air Force One", but that still doesn't tell me for sure who originated the line "Get off my plane!" Harrison Ford may have ad-libbed it, or the director may have added it, for all we know.

Thus far I guess our society hasn't found it that necessary to create a culture of strict attribution.

There's a story that a man approached Cary Grant on the street, and remarked "I wish I could be as smooth as you are on the screen". To which Cary replied "I wish I could be like that, too!"

The low point of this phenomenon was when Sally Fields testified before Congress on farm problems, after she starred in a movie set on a farm.

"It's an interesting that this seldom happens in theatre, music or literature but often happens in film, comedy and speeches."

It happens all the time in music. Songwriters are seldom as well-known as performers, and you could argue that they do the lion's share of the "authorship" of a given song. Most of them arrange the music and write the lyrics. It's a rare instance where a songwriter becomes prominent enough, in his or her own right, to rise to the fame and fortune of his or her star performer. For every Quincy Jones or Leonard Bernstein, you have 100 songwriters and producers laboring in obscurity behind big-ticket artists. (In fairness, though, highly successful songwriters earn residuals on their work, and thus tend to be handsomely rewarded. They get the fortune, if not necessarily the fame or the popular attribution).

Theatre is an interesting exception to the general rule. Some of it is a function of time. We have every reason to believe, for instance, that William Shakespeare was less famous in his day than were the best-known actors who performed his work. But since there was no technology around back then to record the performances for posterity, the only things that survived were the written works -- attributed solely to the playwright.

The rise of credit for performer, rather than writer, probably has a lot to do with the rise of the recording and media industries.

In fairness, any truly great screenwriter or director will tell you that performers really do contribute enormously to the final product. A great screenplay is a great screenplay, but the finished film is a substantially different piece of work. A screenplay is to a film what an outline is to a paper, or what a wireframe is to a website. It's critical, but it's highly theoretical and open to myriad different interpretations. The interpretation that ended up on film, in this case, is the work of multiple "authors."

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-...

"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."

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

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

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.

> 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.

Ok, fine, I wasn't really thinking of ancient Greece. (But you'll note that ancient Greece declined and fell shortly thereafter. Pericles didn't have a speechwriter, either.)

Jackson was notoriously illiterate. Washington was a stuffed shirt whose brain was largely provided by Hamilton. These are examples of the 20th century avant la lettre - neither statesman would have admitted the practice. Dishonorable behavior is not precluded in societies with strong honor codes - as we can see from Dr. King's own academic record.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com