There is an issue that has disturbed both Liberals and Conservatives for many years. That issue is the fact that the Estate of Martin Luther King Jr. has refused to release King’s “I Have a Dream” speech into the public domain. That among other writings and even his likeness. Until now we all have begrudgingly accepted this, because we figured his widow, the late Coretta Scott King needed to make money off the material to keep a roof over her head. Whether that was the case or not, our sorrow for her losing the provider of her household was enough for us to express only tempered anger. Of course if the issue was one of finance, we would hope that her children would be capable of handling her bills. Although it was Oprah Winfrey who moved Mrs. King to a new condo before she died.

The King Family said the money (royalties) were going to The King Center, which we all know is run by the King Family. And we all know that despite the money made, the King Center has had some major financial management issues. We know that Dexter King seemed to make inappropriate use of some funds. And in the end, the King Center appears to be nothing more than an abused cash cow. Abused or not, if they can keep the King Center running on their own, then so be it. It is works like the “I Have a Dream” speech that is the greater issue.

For years the King Estate has felt it necessary to maintain a strangle hold on all that is “King”. Leveraging the “I Have a Dream” speech as the most prized asset of the “cash cow”. While Martin Luther King Jr. was very giving of himself, it seems his heirs have used him in an alternate manner. One where everyone must pay to use his most moving speech. It is ironic that a speech that speaks of the content of character would show the character of the King family to be very low. And the history of this issue bears that out. The abuses are so well documented, I will just list some sources you can review for yourself and mention some cases.

• From the Right, John J. Miller wrote a piece in the National Review, that details many of the abuses.
• From the Left, David Plotz wrote a piece in Slate, that details how Dexter King has turned King’s “dream” into a monetary fantasy.
• The usually Left leaning Washington Post has detailed how many were shocked when King’s likeness was licensed for commercial purposes.
• CBS (which we all know is Left leaning) has been sued by the King family and had to pony up some big “undisclosed” money. A summary of that legal roller coaster is here.
• The USA Today had to pay after they printed the entire “I Have a Dream” speech, without “authorization”.
• The makers of the documentary “Eyes on the Prize” also had to pay after hearing from King Estate attorneys.

Of course when someone like Mohamed Ali sells his likeness, it is expected. Given he made his life fighting for as much money as he could. On the other hand, Martin Luther King Jr. simply lived to fight what he saw as injustice. He never was one to try and maximize his monetary profits. So maximizing his speeches and likeness for profit simply does not fit King’s “character”. It sadly cheapens his legacy, to something of mere entertainment value. When Coretta Scott King was alive we all were a little quieter about this issue. Now that she is gone and her children are in the prime of their lives, it’s time to let the King family know, that now is the time to release King’s material to the public. At the very least the “I Have a Dream” speech should be released. Those words should not be for sale.

update 4/27/2006 4:44PM Shay at Booker Rising has weighed in, against my request.

The hairs on my staunch capitalist neck are raising up. Why shouldn’t the King family and the King Center profit from the works of Dr. King, like the heirs of other folks? The brotha’s works are valuable, so folks should pay up…with the funds going toward the King Center. Just because Dr. King is black, doesn’t mean that companies like CBS and USA Today and others who want to use his work should not pay market rate (non-profits should get slack though). The issue is with how the King Center is run, and not over whether the King family has rights to his works….which they are fully entitled to have.

It is interesting to me when folks question “why”. Given this is not an issue with El Hajj Malik El Shabazz (aka Malcolm X ). His family does not run around trying to profit off every time someone uses their father’s words. They have even made efforts to make more of his works freely available. They work for themselves and make a living that way. The King family’s profit from royalties did not help “Mother King” when her home was broken into. I guess all that money could not afford her adequate security. In particular, King’s I Have a Dream speech was a moment for all of America. So the question is actually “why not” allow the world to have access to it? Why not allow the USA Today to run the text of the speech for the world to learn? Why not spread the message? I’ve got nothing personally to gain from this. No more than the rest of the world that simply would like it to be freely available, like other works from great speakers. The issue of royalties has held the message back. Locked it up for those who can afford it. The greatest speech of the champion of the “poor” is only available to those who can afford the fee. How ironic.

With or without the fees, the rich will make their money off the speech. It is those who don’t have the money and want to help spread the message that are hurt by the licensing issues.

I have no need to address the talk about “Just because Dr. King is black…”, because the fact he lived in the flesh of a Black man when in a human body has no bearing on this issue. Using the trying to keep a brother down type talk weakens the argument of those who support the King family’s position. Nobody runs the speech without paying because King was Black. They run it because it’s so universal to all that is American, that everyone wants to hear it and treats it like other great works such as JFK’s “ask not what your country can do for you” speech. The whole effort to put a price on it cheapens it’s overall value , to the level of common entertainment and not a priceless speech.