King family seeks to cash in on MLK-Obama items

what's the problem?

WWMLKD?

When political people like JFK & MLK are put on pedestals, little things like fidelity to the person they married are tossed aside as trivial. If a man can't be faithful to his wife, the greatness is a sham and a lie.

Sounds like the nephew is just another greedy 'kin-folk' out to get his...under the guise of: 'this is for the family'.

Huh...bet mafia uses the same excuse...'for the family' before drilling out your kneecaps.

HeronW said:

When political people like JFK & MLK are put on pedestals, little things like fidelity to the person they married are tossed aside as trivial. If a man can't be faithful to his wife, the greatness is a sham and a lie.

Click to expand...

Or possibly greatness is about more than one thing, and we are all flawed, and those of us who manage to achieve powerful change for good in the world despite our flaws deserve to be honored.

Oskar Schindler was a rampant womanizer and a drunk, who wasted tons of money before WWII and afterward; he still saved the lives of thousands of people who are grateful. I think there were probably plenty of faithful German husbands during the war who never stepped out on their wives, all the while cheering Hitler on. By your rationale, the latter were to be praised, Schindler to be scorned. So I think I'm going to reject that.

To get back to the subject: Certain images of MLK probably have to be defended by the familiy in order for them to retain control over any use of the image. In other words, if they don't speak up when people put MLK on a celebratory T-shirt with Obama, they lose their right to speak up when somebody puts MLK on a neo-Nazi T-shirt denigrating him.

our brand

Click to expand...

This was what I found offensive. MLK is nothing but a cash cow for his family.

ClaudiaGray said:

Or possibly greatness is about more than one thing, and we are all flawed, and those of us who manage to achieve powerful change for good in the world despite our flaws deserve to be honored.

Click to expand...

Uhh, this. QFT.

At least we are not yet going Medieval and collecting bones of our political and celebrity saints and icons -- yet.
MLK femur on ebay?
Elvis' pelvis, a splinter from the True Guitar of Chuck Berry at Sotheby's?

Hey, if they own the trademark and/or copyright to his image, why shouldn't they?

Joe270 said:

This was what I found offensive. MLK is nothing but a cash cow for his family.

Click to expand...

Good, so I'm not the only one put off by that. These people are slime.

You know, there is something to be said for controlling where the image of an honored family member appears. Regardless of money.

For example, my grandfather was a public figure in my state and county in his field. Since he passed away a year ago, there have been several very nice things done in his honor. We as a family have been very grateful. Was he a saint? No. Did he do some great things for his family, his community and his state? Absolutely.

I would, however, object to someone putting his face on a t-shirt putting someone down, or putting forth an idea he would never have supported. (Not that I can see anyone putting him on a t-shirt, but I can see someone trying to use his name to support something not quite right.)

Controlling the license and the money to be made from the use of that license is one way to try to protect the person's legacy. It's one way to make sure that that person's accomplishments are treated with respect. The control over the resulting profit is a tool to be used to protect your family's name and reputation. That doesn't mean they're out for the profit only.

I'm not saying that the t-shirts are in bad taste. I haven't seen them. That being said, I can understand that the family would want to be consulted and to be careful not to lose any legal rights to control how their family member is portrayed in public when they are no longer around to protect themselves.