OSNews

Not at all. We should just build a peep show booth around the monument and charge people a dollar per look. No pictures allowed.

I have always been of the opinion that any speech made in a public forum should be public domain to some extent. Somehow I think this has more to do with his family than him. They were absolutely desperate not to give away his works. He had a dream, and it will cost you $20 to find out what it was.

Public performance by the ARTIST doesn't imply public domain. Copyright attaches regardless of HOW or WHERE the media is delivered. You actually have to state that what you are doing is for the public domain before it becomes public domain... unless you're the government, where everything they do is by law public domain since they technically work for the public.

Exactly. This actually went to court and they found that when he gave this speech it wasn't a "general publication", and that's why it's still copyrighted.

Also, while the text of the speech will be public domain in 2038 (life + 70), the sound recording of it won't be until 2067, because Congress gave all audio recordings 75 years of copyright in 1972, plus the 20 year extension that came in 1998.

I am not sure he actually gave the speech in a "public" place. Further, as the author he has some rights to how its distributed. I don't like the way it is but not sure how I would change things.

Oh I think it does work that way (in broader context, not only ~copyright & performances); it's generally less clear than people like to make it out to be (and needs better arguments - or, too often, any arguments - for why one "can't" benefit from items which are more in the virtual sphere)

After all - from a "normal" property (or, say, one intermediate thing from my place http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_usufruct ) your heirs can obviously benefit, also without work on their part, long after you're dead. Property which now, ultimately, is just a snippet in some databases (so sort of "virtual" - and sure, one might say that's a value attached to physical, hence scarce, goods, but a) we clearly treat agreed values of different kinds of goods as interchangeable b) at the very least, "virtual goods" tend to be made by humans - hence are also impacted by scarcities)

Yeah, it will be a mess to figure out / "not sure how I would change things"

Well, part of the issue is that he isn't the author for a fair portion of his works. He plagiarized a great deal (that we know), including the ending of his "I Have A Dream" speech. That said, he was a great orator that brought about a great social change, but his family has some gall to use copyright like this.

Couldn't! COULDN'T! COULD NOT!

For crying out loud, the saying is "I couldn't care less". As in, you don't care about the issue at all. Zip, zero, zilch caring involved.

Saying you "could" care less, means you actually care about the issue, which is the exact opposite of what you are trying to say.

Actually, Vinegar Joe apparently cared enough to make this post; thus it can be argued that his "care value", while quite small, is greater than zero. Assuming that he could indeed have a "care value" of zero, we might then safely conclude that he could care less.

Dear Sir/Madam
Regarding your claim to the phrase "I have a Cream", I find that this work is derivative of the Weeble Family's notable work "I have a Cheese", which as you will know was first performed in 1496.

My solicitors will in touch shortly to negotiate a settlement

Edited 2012-01-20 14:19 UTC