Martin Luther King's Greedy Kids Turn The Dream Into an ATM

nighttimer · Mar 13, 2014

The squabbling kids of Martin Luther King, Jr. and his wife Coretta don't play well with others or each other for that matter. Want to play the "I Have A Dream" speech at a MLK Day celebration? It's not in the public domain. You have to cough up $20 bucks to The King Center if you want to use it.

The greedy and selfish actions of the squabbling siblings who are trying to cash in on every aspect of King's legacy they can control is well-established, but now they're taking it to all-new lows.

The two brothers control the King estate are now suing their sister so they can sell their father's Nobel Peace prize and a Bible he owned.

Perhaps someone needs to organize a march to protest the King family mess. Bernice King, the daughter of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., held a press conference last week where she pleaded with her brothers not to sell their father’s Bible and Nobel Peace Prize.

“I implore you to consider the magnitude of this moment in history and how you want your individual legacies to be defined,” King said at Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta.

Just stop the madness. The forever feuding King kids are out of control.

King’s estate is run by his two sons, Martin Luther King III and Dexter King. The estate’s lawyers filed court papers on Jan. 31 asking a judge to order their sister, Bernice King, to surrender the items.

Bernice insists that King III and Dexter have contacted people who want to buy the Bible and the Noble Prize. A judge, who is trying to mediate a temporary solution, set a deadline for the items to be placed in a safe deposit box and Bernice King says she will comply with the judge’s order.

Are Martin III and Dexter so desperate that they need to cash in on their father’s personal mementos? Here’s an ironic twist: When King was notified of his award, he announced that he would turn over the prize money – $54,123 – to support the civil rights movement.

Fifty years after King unselfishly donated his Nobel Prize money to his campaign for social justice, his children are fighting each other in court over the same Noble Prize medal – for money.

It seems like the King family is suing everybody – or at least threatening all kinds of folks with potential legal action. Last week, Georgia’s governor was also put on notice. A Georgia bill calls for a monument to Dr. King to be erected on the grounds of the Georgia Capitol.

Gov. Nathan Deal told a congregation at Ebenezer Baptist Church in January that he would work with the legislature to secure a place at the Capitol for a memorial. But Eric Tidwell, who represents the King family, sent a letter to the governor’s office saying the estate owns all rights to Dr. King’s “name, image, likeness, words, rights of publicity, copyrighted works, recorded voice and trademark interests.
”
When the media reported that the governor referenced this initiative in remarks he made on the King holiday, we expected to hear from your office and the appropriate parties seeking the estate’s input and approval,” Tidwell wrote. The latest dispute between the King family comes months after Martin III and Dexter decided to sue Andrew Young, the former U.S. Ambassador and close personal friend to King.

At issue is a lawsuit initiated by King’s sons. The legal argument focuses on who has the rights to King’s words and image. King’s sons are apparently angry at Young over footage of King that appears in a production by Young’s foundation.

Another of King’s friends — actor Harry Belafonte – is also embroiled in a legal dispute with King’s children over ownership of some King documents.

Who would have thought the children of the Dreamer would grow up to be such greedheads? Apparently, the color of the cash matters more than the content of their character.

I don't know if Martin and Coretta Scott King believed in corporal punishment, but somebody should have whupped some butts early on in the lives of these brats.

Alessandra Kelley · Mar 13, 2014

nighttimer said:
The squabbling kids of Martin Luther King, Jr. and his wife Coretta don't play well with others or each other for that matter. Want to play the "I Have A Dream" speech at a MLK Day celebration? It's not in the public domain. You have to cough up $20 bucks to The King Center if you want to use it.

The greedy and selfish actions of the squabbling siblings who are trying to cash in on every aspect of King's legacy they can control is well-established, but now they're taking it to all-new lows.

The two brothers control the King estate are now suing their sister so they can sell their father's Nobel Peace prize and a Bible he owned.

Who would have thought the children of the Dreamer would grow up to be such greedheads? Apparently, the color of the cash matters more than the content of their character.

I don't know if Martin and Coretta Scott King believed in corporal punishment, but somebody should have whupped some butts early on in the lives of these brats.

I'm afraid the heirs of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. have been behaving this way for a long time. This is pretty shabby, though.

Maybe it's one of those curses of being the children of a selfless human rights leader. I understand the descendants of Ghandi have had their problems as well.

rugcat · Mar 13, 2014

Alessandra Kelley said:
Maybe it's one of those curses of being the children of a selfless human rights leader. I understand the descendants of Ghandi have had their problems as well.

Occasionally people who achieve greatness on a grand scale are not so admirable in their private relations. Sometimes they just don't have time for their own families. Sometimes the pressure of living with an icon's name attached does something to the kids. And sometimes, the kids just turn out not very well, despite everyone's best efforts.

I know some great people and great parents whose kids are disappointments, to say the least. I also know some problematic individuals whose kids turned out great. And every combination thereof.

Cyia · Mar 13, 2014

I can actually understand the usage fee, if it was going to support a charity or something tied to his estate. $20 is more of a token than anything else. But how do you copyright the image of dead man - especially one who was a public historical figure?

(For that matter, how do you sell a Nobel prize? Are they not the property of the governing award body rather than the recipient?)

Mac H. · Mar 15, 2014

This isn't just about 'greedy kids' - Martin Luther King had some ideas about his IP that would be considered 'odd' today.

While he was alive he sued over people referencing his 'I have a dream' speech.

In his view - the speech was only for those who were there at the time .. and it was disrespectful and dishonest for the rest of us to have listened to those words.

(He declared in one lawsuit that he "did not intend his speech ‘to be generally distributed or generally made available to the public at large’", but instead the only valid use of it was to be "specifically limited in use to assisting the press coverage of the March by the press")

Thankfully copyright violators have permitted people like myself to experience his speech.

Mac

Thuro · Mar 15, 2014

Maybe it was an act of humbleness or the beginnings of greed. We will never know. But all in all we can't expect him to perfect. He was a man; flawed like the rest of us. But he did a lot of good in the world.
Nobodies perfect.

cornflake · Mar 15, 2014

Cyia said:
(For that matter, how do you sell a Nobel prize? Are they not the property of the governing award body rather than the recipient?)

No, you're awarded one, it's yours to do with as you please, same as anything else.

Alessandra Kelley said:
Maybe it's one of those curses of being the children of a selfless human rights leader. I understand the descendants of Ghandi have had their problems as well.

I'm not at all denigrating what he did for civil and human rights, but MLK Jr. I don't think could really be described as selfless. He had, like anyone, his issues and his personal life was as messy as many people's.

nighttimer · Mar 15, 2014

Mac H. said:
This isn't just about 'greedy kids' - Martin Luther King had some ideas about his IP that would be considered 'odd' today.

While he was alive he sued over people referencing his 'I have a dream' speech.

In his view - the speech was only for those who were there at the time .. and it was disrespectful and dishonest for the rest of us to have listened to those words.

(He declared in one lawsuit that he "did not intend his speech ‘to be generally distributed or generally made available to the public at large’", but instead the only valid use of it was to be "specifically limited in use to assisting the press coverage of the March by the press")

Thankfully copyright violators have permitted people like myself to experience his speech.

I'd really like to see a citation of these lawsuits and of these MLK quotes because this is all news to me. :Wha:

cornflake said:
I'm not at all denigrating what he did for civil and human rights, but MLK Jr. I don't think could really be described as selfless. He had, like anyone, his issues and his personal life was as messy as many people's.

Sure it was. He smoked. He ate too much. He cheated on his wife. He attempted suicide when he was young. But he certainly didn't attempt to profit from his prominence which may partially explain why MLK's kids are trying to cash in on their daddy's legacy. They sure haven't done much to create one of their own.

MLK Jr. died not only without financial assets, but without a will. Despite his widely known premonitions concerning his own early demise (most noteworthy in speeches such as “If I Had Sneezed,” and his final speech in Memphis the night before he was slain), King died intestate. Although his wife Coretta had admonished him for years to set some funds aside for the higher education of their four children, King left his family with no appreciable benefits from his five books, hundreds of speaking engagements, his ministry, and of most concern to his wife, the $54,600 he earned as recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize. While Mrs. King thought some of the award money should be invested for the children’s sake, her husband donated the funds to the movement.

Though he was a prolific writer and public speaker, King viewed his own financial sacrifice as a vow of relative poverty. In keeping with this ethos, King’s funeral procession featured not Cadillacs or Lincoln limousines, but a humble casket drawn by a mule carriage representative of his final mission, the Poor People’s Campaign. It was activists such as Harry Belafonte who raised money to ensure that the King children were supported through childhood and educated. The absence of a will has led to many court battles over the use and intellectual property of the leader’s written speeches, his image, recordings, and his literary works. Some related disputes have engendered rifts among King’s then-four surviving children (Yolanda died in 2008), and other close relatives. A will would have provided some direction in this regard.

No, Dr. King wasn't selfless. He had his vices and serious character defects like every other great man and woman has. But he's as close to selfless in what he sacrificed to leave things better than he found them as anyone we're likely to see in our lifetime.

Ketzel · Mar 15, 2014

There was a fairly complex IP issue (under the Copyright Act of 1909, which was in effect at the time) around the "Dream," speech. The major issue was whether its delivery in public and its distribution in writing to the press before the speech was delivered, put it into the public domain.

Both during MLK's lifetime and after, the family position was that the "Dream" speech was not in the public domain. In 1999, the Estate sued CBS for using the speech without permission in a documentary film.

He declared in one lawsuit that he "did not intend his speech ‘to be generally distributed or generally made available to the public at large’", but instead the only valid use of it was to be "specifically limited in use to assisting the press coverage of the March by the press."

These are technical arguments in support of the legal position that the speech did not enter the public domain at the time of its delivery. They don't mean he didn't want the general public to hear his words. They are saying he did not forfeit his copyright by delivering copies of the speech to the press, because that distribution was a limited one intended to garner publicity only.

Anna L. · Mar 15, 2014

Any time money enters the equation, people go nuts. Ask anyone who regularly handles wills; if there's any money at all and there's more than one heir, things often get ugly. Family feuds everywhere!

kuwisdelu · Mar 15, 2014

Mac H. said:
(He declared in one lawsuit that he "did not intend his speech ‘to be generally distributed or generally made available to the public at large’", but instead the only valid use of it was to be "specifically limited in use to assisting the press coverage of the March by the press")

I can't help but wonder if that was mostly due to views on copyright and IP itself, or an aesthetic view of the role of oratory.

I'm curious whether he was wanting to protect the IP specifically, or the idea of experiencing something in person, intimately.

Alessandra Kelley · Mar 16, 2014

Yeah, the "selfless" comment was pretty dopey. Sorry for my poor word choice.

For that matter, Ghandi's personal life was messed up too, for all the good he did. Maybe not in the same ways as MLK Jr., but still probably a trial for those close to him.

Mac H. · Mar 22, 2014

nighttimer said:
I'd really like to see a citation of these lawsuits and of these MLK quotes because this is all news to me.

Martin Luther KING, Jr., Plaintiff, v. MISTER MAESTRO, INC., and 20th Century-Fox Record Corporation, Defendants.

There's no particular reason you should have heard about it - unless you are the kind of pathetic sod who geeks out over the history of IP law.

But enough about me ...

Mac
(PS: Ketzel seems to have a pretty good handle of it in their comment above. It's an issue with plenty of subtlety about it - the concept of what 'ownership' of IP means was (and is) still evolving.)

nighttimer · Mar 22, 2014

Mac H. said:
Martin Luther KING, Jr., Plaintiff, v. MISTER MAESTRO, INC., and 20th Century-Fox Record Corporation, Defendants.

There's no particular reason you should have heard about it - unless you are the kind of pathetic sod who geeks out over the history of IP law.

But enough about me ...

Mac
(PS: Ketzel seems to have a pretty good handle of it in their comment above. It's an issue with plenty of subtlety about it - the concept of what 'ownership' of IP means was (and is) still evolving.)

Thanks for the link, Mac H. I was unfamiliar with this lawsuit, so I appreciate your bringing it to my attention.

However, after having read it, I take contention with one specific remark you made previously.

Mac H. said:
This isn't just about 'greedy kids' - Martin Luther King had some ideas about his IP that would be considered 'odd' today.

While he was alive he sued over people referencing his 'I have a dream' speech.

In his view - the speech was only for those who were there at the time .. and it was disrespectful and dishonest for the rest of us to have listened to those words.

The document you have referenced is a complaint filed by Dr. King's attorneys to protect his intellectual property from the defendants, Mister Maestro, Inc and 20th Century Fox, from releasing a record album of his "I Have A Dream" speech without either crediting MLK or providing him a share of the profits from the sales of the record.

What's odd about King deciding not to be ripped-off by some fast buck artists? Perhaps he had his own deal struck with a record company for an authorized recording and didn't want it undercut by a cash-grab bootleg. I daresay most of us would be rightly cheesed off over somebody attempting to make money off our work.

But more importantly, this document is written in lawyer-speak, not Baptist minister-speak. At no point does Dr. King himself say of his March on Washington speech, "it was disrespectful and dishonest for the rest of us to have listened to those words" The words "disrespectful" and "dishonest" don't even appear in the complaint.

Which leads me to conclude those phrases represent an editorial comment by you and not Dr. King's actual words as you presented them to be.

I wonder why you attempted to do so unless it was to attempt to give the impression Dr. King was as motivated by greed in 1963 in defending his legacy as his sons are in 2014 to cash in on what remains of it.

Alessandra Kelley · Mar 22, 2014

nighttimer said:
Thanks for the link, Mac H. I was unfamiliar with this lawsuit, so I appreciate your bringing it to my attention.

However, after having read it, I take contention with one specific remark you made previously.

The document you have referenced is a complaint filed by Dr. King's attorneys to protect his intellectual property from the defendants, Mister Maestro, Inc and 20th Century Fox, from releasing a record album of his "I Have A Dream" speech without either crediting MLK or providing him a share of the profits from the sales of the record.

What's odd about King deciding not to be ripped-off by some fast buck artists? Perhaps he had his own deal struck with a record company for an authorized recording and didn't want it undercut by a cash-grab bootleg. I daresay most of us would be rightly cheesed off over somebody attempting to make money off our work.

But more importantly, this document is written in lawyer-speak, not Baptist minister-speak. At no point does Dr. King himself say of his March on Washington speech, "it was disrespectful and dishonest for the rest of us to have listened to those words" The words "disrespectful" and "dishonest" don't even appear in the complaint.

Which leads me to conclude those phrases represent an editorial comment by you and not Dr. King's actual words as you presented them to be.

I wonder why you attempted to do so unless it was to attempt to give the impression Dr. King was as motivated by greed in 1963 in defending his legacy as his sons are in 2014 to cash in on what remains of it.

I agree. That description was misleading and inaccurate.

It seems to me perfectly reasonable to sue to stop the equivalent of content scrapers from printing an unauthorized rough draft of a speech never meant for the public and a sound recording of that speech in violation of copyright and without credit and for profit.

The whole situation sounds pretty outrageous, and I wonder that no one at Fox thought to even ask permission, never mind license copyright lawfully.

Wilde_at_heart · Mar 24, 2014

Anna L. said:
Any time money enters the equation, people go nuts. Ask anyone who regularly handles wills; if there's any money at all and there's more than one heir, things often get ugly. Family feuds everywhere!

I've long thought whopping inheritance taxes beyond a certain amount can only do good in this world... If you can't make it on the 'name' and connections already then you're probably better off having to get a proper job like anyone else.

However, with this case... protecting a legacy is one thing (there was a dreadful CGI'd Audrey Hepburn I saw for some chocolate ad recently... not sure who was responsible for that) and it seems to be going to support the Center in his name...

ETA:

Alessandra Kelley said:
Yeah, the "selfless" comment was pretty dopey. Sorry for my poor word choice.

For that matter, Ghandi's personal life was messed up too, for all the good he did. Maybe not in the same ways as MLK Jr., but still probably a trial for those close to him.

It's not possible to be everything to all people. Especially back in a time when men weren't necessarily expected to be that involved in their family. Breadwinner, yes, but the rest, less so. Should they have never had children to begin with one could argue? Who knows... but there are certainly worse fathers out there.

Mac H. · Apr 12, 2014

nighttimer said:
Thanks for the link, Mac H. I was unfamiliar with this lawsuit, so I appreciate your bringing it to my attention.

..

At no point does Dr. King himself say of his March on Washington speech, "it was disrespectful and dishonest for the rest of us to have listened to those words" The words "disrespectful" and "dishonest" don't even appear in the complaint.

Sorry for the confusion. That bit was definitely me editorialising.

To clarify - when reading my post :

The parts inside quotes were quotes from him.
The parts outside of quotes were written by me.

My editorialising was to contrast it with current views on IP - in particular I was using wording that are used in the current debate on piracy. In particular the words are similar to that another case - where a broadcaster argued that would be unethical and dishonest for viewers to leave the room when an ad on TV was on - as they had effectively agreed to be advertised to in return for receiving the content. (In that example, they did use the words 'unethical' and 'dishonest')

I didn't intend to hit a raw nerve in my implication that this particular copyright holder might share the view that it is dishonest for people to copy copyrighted content against the express permission the copyright owner.

It wasn't intended to be a direct quote - just a bit of editorialising ... a simplistic extrapolation of the fact that he sued people for doing that exact thing, and also sued the newspaper for printing his speech in an account of the event.

Anyway - it really is fascinating how our view of IP is evolving.

And remember - if I put something in quotes, then it's a quote. If it's not in quotes - it's the bit where I talk about my interpretation!

Mac
(PS: It wasn't the complaint I linked to ... it was the court's decision which only mentioned King's motivations in passing .. enough to clarify that they are legally irrelevant. If you want to geek out a bit more over this bit of IP history, here's one of his actual submissions in the case: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/featured_documents/mlk_speech/images/mlk_v_fox_1.jpg Change the number to read the rest of that particular submission.

Oh - and the finding for a preliminary injunction on the case here: http://www.leagle.com/decision/1963325224FSupp101_1300

The history of how we view IP is well worthing getting into.
)

(PPS: I just re-read your post. I certainly wasn't implying that he was 'motivated by greed'. Yes - it's undisputed that he (or his organisation) intended to license out recordings for money .. that was the logic behind his successful injunction. The idea that a writer and creator of ideas might choose to financially support his organisation from his work isn't greed ! It's common sense. In fact - it almost seems immoral for an organisation try to run on donations when it can financially support itself)

I was actually simply pointing out the fallacy in the original argument, which was that his heirs (now EMI - who own the rights) are greedy because they chose to use his words to generate income, which was (allegedly) against his wishes. I was pointing out the opposite - that he always intended for his organisation to reap the financial benefit from his hard work.

That isn't greed. It's good stewardship.)

GailD · Apr 12, 2014

Sadly, it's not only MLK's family turning greedy.

Nelson Mandela's family are doing the same. http://www.citypress.co.za/news/graca-machel-threat-bitter-rows-erupt-madibas-money/

You'd think that the children of these great men of peace would have, at least, learned a little. But I guess the old adage 'The shoemaker's children don't have shoes' has a lot of validity.

Martin Luther King's Greedy Kids Turn The Dream Into an ATM

nighttimer

No Gods No Masters

Alessandra Kelley

Sophipygian

rugcat

Lost in the Fog

Cyia

Rewriting My Destiny

Mac H.

Board Visitor

Thuro

I'm Batman

cornflake

practical experience, FTW

nighttimer

No Gods No Masters

Ketzel

Leaving on the 2:19

Anna L.

kuwisdelu

Revolutionize the World

Alessandra Kelley

Sophipygian

Mac H.

Board Visitor

nighttimer

No Gods No Masters

Alessandra Kelley

Sophipygian

Wilde_at_heart

υπείκωphobe

Mac H.

Board Visitor

GailD

Still chasing plot bunnies.

Martin Luther King's Greedy Kids Turn The Dream Into an ATM

No Gods No Masters

Sophipygian

Lost in the Fog

Rewriting My Destiny

Board Visitor

I'm Batman

practical experience, FTW

No Gods No Masters

Leaving on the 2:19

Revolutionize the World

Sophipygian

Board Visitor

No Gods No Masters

Sophipygian

&#965;&#960;&#949;&#943;&#954;&#969;phobe

Board Visitor

Still chasing plot bunnies.

υπείκωphobe