I Have a Dream

I am a constitutionalist. Specifically, I think the American Constitution is an awe-inspiring document of magisterial purpose and effect. More generally, I think thoughtful political and philosophical understanding can lead to foundations for governance which will lead to more just and peaceful societies.

In the American Constitution, as many know, resides the cornerstone of intellectual property law. Article I, Section 8 includes the uniquely specific clause allowing Congress to "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."

Though statutory updates have diluted the purpose, it remains clear: copyrights and patents exist to provide incentives for creators.

Today, while watching Lewis Hyde's presentation on the cultural commons, I learned that Martin Luther King, Jr.'s creative works are under copyright. While this isn't surprising in itself, apparently the King family aggressively protects the copyrights to such works as the Reverend's famed "I Have a Dream" speech. In fact, it has gone so far in the past as to sue USA Today for reproducing the speech.

This isn't because they don't want people to hear the content or the important message, it is because they want to monetize it. This older Washington Post article covers the past uses of MLK, Jr.'s work for enrichment of the family. In 1997, they raised the ire of a number of people when they struck a multi-million dollar deal with Time Warner to sell audio tapes and books of his work.

Insofar as the family is acting within the law, I have no problem. However, the law which allows them to do so is at serious odds with the Constitution and common sense. For one, they claim that deals such as the Time Warner one "would... bring King's message to a wider audience." This is dishonest and wrong. MLK needs no distribution that the Internet cannot provide. Making his work commercial does nothing more than raise the cost of accessing his historic work and thus disenfranchising those who want to learn about the struggle to which he devoted his life.

Secondly, this serves to show how overtly at-odds with the Constitution our current copyright regime is. Martin Luther King, Jr. did not need a monetary incentive to write his speeches. Like all humans, he was diversely motivated. The inequity of America and his desire to change it, his dream, as it were, was motivation enough. The fact that his heirs, who did not create the work, are able to limit access is infuriating.

The "I Have a Dream" speech and other creative, political expressions of MLK, Jr. are indisputably the "useful arts" that the Framers wanted to encourage. Yet it is the tragedy of our day that those same Framers who wanted limited intellectual monopoly rights have seen their dream turn into today's copyright nightmare.