The King Family's Intellectual Property Rights vs The Redistriibutive Theory Of The "Inheritance Tax"

NPR's "On The Media" program puts forth some interesting details around the struggle by the King family to control the "intellectual property rights" of their late father's speeches and other valuable contributions to public discourse. Every speech that Rev Dr Martin Luther King Jr has made are subject to licensing. Any news program or documentary film maker seeking to make use of this content as they attempt to communicate this historical great's vision to a new generation must receive explicit support from the entity set up by the King family to handle this request. A licensing fee is likely charged to the producers of the works.

Before I get into the debate let me say that I am a strong proponent of "IPR" (Intellectual Property Rights" and of patents. Those who have invested their efforts into a certain advancement deserve to control and profit from their product.

I am also not a lawyer so, I assure you, that my layman's viewpoint will likely make some attorneys in the practice cringe.

Are Dr King's Speeches Akin To Historical Documents Such As "The Gettysburg Address" OR A Literary Work Made By A Private Citizen OR Like A Drug Patent?



There is no question that Dr King was a private citizen, a Christian minister. He never held elective office in his life that was shorted by an assassin's bullet who's bigotry inspired him to insure that no more great works would be crafted by King.

It is also true that while he worked to "hone the rough edges" off of the "US Constitution" and its enforcement - none of the original authors of this great foundational document had an official elective office at the time of its assembly. Any office that was assumed by Thomas Jefferson, for example, was a derivative of the structure defined by the document that he collaborated upon.

Of course the founding documents that constructed this nation or valuable entries such as the "Gettysburg Address" would be considered for restrictive copyright. Again - these were all done by those who operated under the "authority" of government.

King's speeches are thus not like the "US Constitution" or the "Gettysburg Address".  It would be unthinkable for the federal government to deem a body of work made by a non-government official as a "vital historical document" and then expropriate it for its own official use.

With the recent dust-up surrounding the literary works of Mark Twain - from my understanding - these works from more than 100 years ago are now considered

The copyright history of "The Adventures Of Tom Sawyer " are listed as such:

The first publication of The Adventures of Tom Sawyer was by Chatto and Windus, in England in June 1876 (it was listed as "ready" on June 10 and was reviewed on June 24 in the literary publication The Atheneum), and in the U.S. by subscription only in December 1876. Twain and other U.S. authors used initial publication in England fairly often, since otherwise it was impossible to obtain a copyright in the British Commonwealth. In the case of Tom Sawyer, the delay between the London and U.S. editions extended much beyond what Twain envisioned, or desired. This led to widespread piracy of the work - notably a July 4, 1876 pirated edition in Canada obtained by many American readers - and, Twain believed, to a significant loss of his royalties.


When the work did appear in the U.S., it was sold by subscription only. In this distribution method, book agents across the country took orders for the book prior to publication and then delivered the book when available. It was only with subsequent editions that the book became available in retail shops.

On the Gutenberg project "The Adventures of Tom Sawyer" is freely accessible and distributed as such:

The Project Gutenberg EBook of The Adventures of Tom Sawyer, Complete
by Mark Twain (Samuel Clemens)

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or
re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.net

King's speeches are not 'open source' literary works, free to be used or altered.

With regard to patents and copyrights my legal training is that of a "Wikipedia trained lawyer".

Copyright

Copyright may be bought and sold much like other properties.[54] In the individual licensing model the copyright owner authorizes the use of the work against remuneration and under the conditions specified by the license. The conditions of the license may be complex since the exclusive rights granted by copyright to the copyright owner can be split territorially or with respect to language, the sequence of uses may be fixed, the number of copies to be made and their subsequent use may also be specified. Furthermore sublicenses and representation agreements may also be made

I did not see any specific reference to a time domain after which a copyright would expire, allowing others to make use of this "intellectual property".  (Yes I know lawyers reading this - I have no doubt jumped the track between the framing of patents and copyright protected works)

Patent

A patent (pronounced /ˈpætənt/ or /ˈpeɪtənt/) is a set of exclusive rights granted by a state (national government) to an inventor or their assignee for a limited period of time in exchange for a public disclosure of an invention.

 So it is clear that King's speeches are copyrighted property and not "patented" information or "trade secrets".

A lawsuit against the CBS Corporation provided clarity to the fair use of "I Have A Dream"

Who owns the "I Have A Dream" speech:

If a speech such as the "I Have a Dream" speech by the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. develops "commercial value," who should receive that value? What if the author of the speech is dead? What if the commercial use of a speech contradicts the message of the speech? Somehow, our society must answer these questions. Here are a couple of excerpts from a recent Associated Press report on this problem.

 King's Property As A Public Good That Should Not Be Appropriated For Exclusive Use

 (nary a post on this blog goes by without an indictment against a Progressive, throwing their theories back at them)

 When it comes to the "Estate Tax" the argument is that no private property should be allowed to be amassed by a family or small group of individuals.  The high taxation rate associated with the "Estate Tax" is meant to "nationalize", "redistribute" this property for a use that is determined  by the legislative body that defines the terms of the nation's reapportionment priorities.

When it comes to the proverbial "family farm" - the land, buildings and equipment that have the Estate Tax levied upon it have both intrinsic value and revenue generating potential in the future for those who possess the property.   If they the heirs are forced to sell out parcels of this land in order to meet the high bar for the taxes that are paid in the name of the Estate Tax then this means that their future earnings will also be diminished per their loss of productive resources.

While there is no doubt that there is logical attachment between the writings of Dr King and the family that carries his name this would not be sufficient enough of a defense for a well-known family cattle ranch to avoid a selloff in support of this inter-generational government usurpation.

The "I Have A Dream" speech is seen as property and it clearly is able to generate licensing fees what would Martin Luther King III who believes in a "guaranteed wage" feel about having to hand over a significant portion of his father's works in order to meet the tax burden that is associated with the collection?

From Martin Luther King Jr's "Where Do We Go From Here" (a copy of which I own)

“Two conditions are indispensable if we are to ensure that the guaranteed income operates as a consistently progressive measure. First, it must be pegged to the median income of society, not the lowest levels of income.

To guarantee an income at the floor would simply perpetuate welfare standards and freeze into the society poverty conditions. Second, the guaranteed income must be dynamic; it must automatically increase as the total social income grows. Were it permitted to remain static under growth conditions, the recipients would suffer a relative decline.

If periodic reviews disclose that the whole national income has risen, then the guaranteed income would have to be adjusted upward by the same percentage. Without these safeguards a creeping retrogression would occur, nullifying the gains of security and stability.

This proposal is not a “civil rights” program, in the sense that term is currently used. The program would benefit all the poor, including the two-thirds of them who are white. I hope that both Negro and white will act in coalition to effect this change, because their combined strength will be necessary to overcome the fierce opposition we must realistically anticipate.”

With all due respect - while this theory assumes that the Kings are supportive of increased government power to achieve this end of "guaranteed income" I doubt that they would agree to allow the same government to apply confiscatory level of taxes upon their franchise, to the point where the government is functionally in control of the property.