Lawyers who won Happy Birthday copyright case sue over “We Shall Overcome”

Civil rights anthem never should have been copyrighted, plaintiffs say.

Read the whole story

 

[Deleted member 174040]

OT: that mural and the tight-crop photo done by the photographer are very well done. Nice selection, Ars.

 

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

No cause so noble(and artist, statesman, musician, etc. so talented) that it's coattails will be free of the most petty and vulgar sort of parasites. Hopefully this case will clean at least a few of them off.

 

[Coriolanus]

You know what's also egregious? The "I Have a Dream" speech and other speeches by MLK, Jr. are still under copyright (obtained by MLK himself and owned by the estate).

 

[onkeljonas]

A picture of the songbook, magazine or other original source would make for some nice laughingstock material...

 

[jonah]

The defendants are going to be kicking themselves when they realize that if they'd just approved the use of the song in the documentary then their gravy train wouldn't have come to an end.

This kind of situation is exactly why we need short, rational copyright terms. Once something is 30+ years old, it should be in the public domain. Full stop. The initial laws reflected this, with 28-year copyright terms.

 

[josephine]

Coriolanus[/url]":1jf1dvyh]You know what's also egregious? The "I Have a Dream" speech and other speeches by MLK, Jr. are still under copyright (obtained by MLK himself and owned by the estate).

Why is that egregious?

 

[fishbait]

Coriolanus[/url]":18zdee5o]You know what's also egregious? The "I Have a Dream" speech and other speeches by MLK, Jr. are still under copyright (obtained by MLK himself and owned by the estate).

the problem and egregious nature does not come from the copyright itself but rather from the people that hold it.
never forget that the most important element in any adversary, battle, problem, or social injustice is and always will be the human one

 

[Wickwick]

Compared to the muddy mess around Happy Birthday this one seems like a slam dunk.

 

[AHvivere]

Still a firm believer that copyright should have exactly the same life as a patent.

 

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Coriolanus[/url]":7w6w8vyr]You know what's also egregious? The "I Have a Dream" speech and other speeches by MLK, Jr. are still under copyright (obtained by MLK himself and owned by the estate).

Aside from the nasty bit of slogging over whether the speech was a 'performance' or a 'general publication'(which, in 1963, would have left it in the public domain unless explicitly registered when published) is there anything terribly sordid about the King materials?


There are some questions about whether the beneficiaries of the King estate are actually as interested in using it to advance civil-rights causes as they claim; rather than succumbing to the classic 'charity cancer' where an allegedly noble organization gradually ends up doing less and paying its 'leadership' more; but that isn't a copyright problem: an author's heirs don't have any specific obligations(barring something baked into the will) to dedicate their inheritance to anything in particular, so even pure self enrichment would be in line with anyone else whose daddy wrote something popular in the 60s.

I'm skeptical of the public-interest benefits of providing his work with 95 years of copyright protection; but that's exactly what any other author of the time and circumstance would get, so it's a quibble with copyright terms in general, not that specific author or work.

This case, like the happy birthday one, is a lot sleazier because the copyright itself is effectively a fraud; so all the proceeds are dirty, no matter how allocated. You don't have to like King's heirs; but the claim that he is the author of a creative work is pretty open-and-shut; with the only real dispute being the technicalities of what, if any, registration was required to satisfy the law then in effect(irrelevant now, since the Berne convention has largely eliminated copyright formalities except as modestly advantageous additional protections under certain circumstances, with fixation being automatic).

 

[Kazper]

fuzzyfuzzyfungus[/url]":t6tvvhy1]

Coriolanus[/url]":t6tvvhy1]You know what's also egregious? The "I Have a Dream" speech and other speeches by MLK, Jr. are still under copyright (obtained by MLK himself and owned by the estate).

Aside from the nasty bit of slogging over whether the speech was a 'performance' or a 'general publication'(which, in 1963, would have left it in the public domain unless explicitly registered when published) is there anything terribly sordid about the King materials?


There are some questions about whether the beneficiaries of the King estate are actually as interested in using it to advance civil-rights causes as they claim; rather than succumbing to the classic 'charity cancer' where an allegedly noble organization gradually ends up doing less and paying its 'leadership' more; but that isn't a copyright problem: an author's heirs don't have any specific obligations(barring something baked into the will) to dedicate their inheritance to anything in particular, so even pure self enrichment would be in line with anyone else whose daddy wrote something popular in the 60s.

I'm skeptical of the public-interest benefits of providing his work with 95 years of copyright protection; but that's exactly what any other author of the time and circumstance would get, so it's a quibble with copyright terms in general, not that specific author or work.

This case, like the happy birthday one, is a lot sleazier because the copyright itself is effectively a fraud; so all the proceeds are dirty, no matter how allocated. You don't have to like King's heirs; but the claim that he is the author of a creative work is pretty open-and-shut; with the only real dispute being the technicalities of what, if any, registration was required to satisfy the law then in effect(irrelevant now, since the Berne convention has largely eliminated copyright formalities except as modestly advantageous additional protections under certain circumstances, with fixation being automatic).

I actually have no problem with his speeches being copyrighted. They are certainly artistic expressions. The problem there is the length of copyright as you allude to yourself. It should quite simply be out of copyright now. That's an entirely different discussion to this case though.

 

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

onkeljonas[/url]":dgxslq37]A picture of the songbook, magazine or other original source would make for some nice laughingstock material...

The great thing about stealing material from poor, powerless, and frequently illiterate people's cultural productions is that they are so courteous about not leaving pesky evidence lying around; which makes the first person who can afford a real publisher look so much more original. This isn't so much an issue for written works, obviously, since even in cultures with traditions of epic poetry and similar stuff of considerable length, the sheer limitations of performance from memory mean that there often isn't any single definitive version; just some number of substantially similar performances woven out of the same set of themses; until after the oral culture has died off and the classicists have compiled a preserved specimen; but music is something that shows up in practically any human culture, regardless of whether or not they even have the concept of musical notation; much less the resources to publish.

And it's a safe bet that most of the people singing either 'we will' or 'we shall' overcome were those who certainly hadn't overcome yet.

 

[KGFish]

fuzzyfuzzyfungus[/url]":2wxrq3qc]

Coriolanus[/url]":2wxrq3qc]You know what's also egregious? The "I Have a Dream" speech and other speeches by MLK, Jr. are still under copyright (obtained by MLK himself and owned by the estate).

Aside from the nasty bit of slogging over whether the speech was a 'performance' or a 'general publication'(which, in 1963, would have left it in the public domain unless explicitly registered when published) is there anything terribly sordid about the King materials?


There are some questions about whether the beneficiaries of the King estate are actually as interested in using it to advance civil-rights causes as they claim; rather than succumbing to the classic 'charity cancer' where an allegedly noble organization gradually ends up doing less and paying its 'leadership' more; but that isn't a copyright problem: an author's heirs don't have any specific obligations(barring something baked into the will) to dedicate their inheritance to anything in particular, so even pure self enrichment would be in line with anyone else whose daddy wrote something popular in the 60s.

I'm skeptical of the public-interest benefits of providing his work with 95 years of copyright protection; but that's exactly what any other author of the time and circumstance would get, so it's a quibble with copyright terms in general, not that specific author or work.

I think that's the point - at least for me. This is a perfect example of copyright actually having a demonstrable and significant negative impact. It prevents history from being taught with all its impact, while it allows a bunch of in-fighting brats to not do anything useful with their lives. For anyone thinking about "it's an inheritance, just like any other!". No. No, it isn't. This is a government-enforced stipend.

This case, like the happy birthday one, is a lot sleazier because the copyright itself is effectively a fraud; so all the proceeds are dirty, no matter how allocated. You don't have to like King's heirs; but the claim that he is the author of a creative work is pretty open-and-shut; with the only real dispute being the technicalities of what, if any, registration was required to satisfy the law then in effect(irrelevant now, since the Berne convention has largely eliminated copyright formalities except as modestly advantageous additional protections under certain circumstances, with fixation being automatic).

Agreed on the fact that this lawsuit is different from Lessig's crusade, and, to some extent, more necessary: it's about fraud, not whether copyright is where it needs to be.

 

[onkeljonas]

fuzzyfuzzyfungus[/url]":1gw36g9q]

onkeljonas[/url]":1gw36g9q]A picture of the songbook, magazine or other original source would make for some nice laughingstock material...

The great thing about stealing material from poor, powerless, and frequently illiterate people's cultural productions is that they are so courteous about not leaving pesky evidence lying around; which makes the first person who can afford a real publisher look so much more original. This isn't so much an issue for written works, obviously, since even in cultures with traditions of epic poetry and similar stuff of considerable length, the sheer limitations of performance from memory mean that there often isn't any single definitive version; just some number of substantially similar performances woven out of the same set of themses; until after the oral culture has died off and the classicists have compiled a preserved specimen; but music is something that shows up in practically any human culture, regardless of whether or not they even have the concept of musical notation; much less the resources to publish.

And it's a safe bet that most of the people singing either 'we will' or 'we shall' overcome were those who certainly hadn't overcome yet.

I'm not sure my point came across.
The story makes the copyright holders look like dicks. A picture of one of the earlier sources would make them "Nelson haha" worthy.

 

[Falos]

Nothing more than adults calling dibs.

 

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

onkeljonas[/url]":3twmdufz]

fuzzyfuzzyfungus[/url]":3twmdufz]

onkeljonas[/url]":3twmdufz]A picture of the songbook, magazine or other original source would make for some nice laughingstock material...

The great thing about stealing material from poor, powerless, and frequently illiterate people's cultural productions is that they are so courteous about not leaving pesky evidence lying around; which makes the first person who can afford a real publisher look so much more original. This isn't so much an issue for written works, obviously, since even in cultures with traditions of epic poetry and similar stuff of considerable length, the sheer limitations of performance from memory mean that there often isn't any single definitive version; just some number of substantially similar performances woven out of the same set of themses; until after the oral culture has died off and the classicists have compiled a preserved specimen; but music is something that shows up in practically any human culture, regardless of whether or not they even have the concept of musical notation; much less the resources to publish.

And it's a safe bet that most of the people singing either 'we will' or 'we shall' overcome were those who certainly hadn't overcome yet.

I'm not sure my point came across.
The story makes the copyright holders look like dicks. A picture of one of the earlier sources would make them "Nelson haha" worthy.

No, that's what I was responding to: the copyright holders in this case are acting like dicks about something they virtually certainly neither created nor duly purchased from someone who did; but the work in question is of the sort that doesn't 'fossilize well' in terms of easily demonstrated counterexamples that either prove something has aged out of copyright or wasn't the work of the alleged author at all.

Spirituals, work songs, folk songs generally, tend to be older than dirt and so very suspicious except for copyright claims that only cover the author's specific performance/variation/etc. of one; but they also tend to have their origins in places where lyrics don't get written down and published as a matter of routine; and authors are often obscure or unknown even to people who know the song.

This doesn't mean that there are zero counterexamples and preserved publications demonstrating a prior claim; but it is a genre that's comparatively safe to plunder compared to contemporary music or written materials in societies that keep a lot of paper records around.

 

[iPirateEverything]

Get them all!

One by one!

Hopefully others will notice and this will snowball so we can get some of our (locked up) culture back.

 

[onkeljonas]

fuzzyfuzzyfungus[/url]":11p5yk12]

onkeljonas[/url]":11p5yk12]

fuzzyfuzzyfungus[/url]":11p5yk12]

onkeljonas[/url]":11p5yk12]A picture of the songbook, magazine or other original source would make for some nice laughingstock material...

The great thing about stealing material from poor, powerless, and frequently illiterate people's cultural productions is that they are so courteous about not leaving pesky evidence lying around; which makes the first person who can afford a real publisher look so much more original. This isn't so much an issue for written works, obviously, since even in cultures with traditions of epic poetry and similar stuff of considerable length, the sheer limitations of performance from memory mean that there often isn't any single definitive version; just some number of substantially similar performances woven out of the same set of themses; until after the oral culture has died off and the classicists have compiled a preserved specimen; but music is something that shows up in practically any human culture, regardless of whether or not they even have the concept of musical notation; much less the resources to publish.

And it's a safe bet that most of the people singing either 'we will' or 'we shall' overcome were those who certainly hadn't overcome yet.

I'm not sure my point came across.
The story makes the copyright holders look like dicks. A picture of one of the earlier sources would make them "Nelson haha" worthy.

No, that's what I was responding to: the copyright holders in this case are acting like dicks about something they virtually certainly neither created nor duly purchased from someone who did; but the work in question is of the sort that doesn't 'fossilize well' in terms of easily demonstrated counterexamples that either prove something has aged out of copyright or wasn't the work of the alleged author at all.

Spirituals, work songs, folk songs generally, tend to be older than dirt and so very suspicious except for copyright claims that only cover the author's specific performance/variation/etc. of one; but they also tend to have their origins in places where lyrics don't get written down and published as a matter of routine; and authors are often obscure or unknown even to people who know the song.

This doesn't mean that there are zero counterexamples and preserved publications demonstrating a prior claim; but it is a genre that's comparatively safe to plunder compared to contemporary music or written materials in societies that keep a lot of paper records around.

The article mention several written sources though: At least the miners Union magazine and the songbook.

 

[groghunter]

onkeljonas[/url]":2p2o0rjj]

fuzzyfuzzyfungus[/url]":2p2o0rjj]

onkeljonas[/url]":2p2o0rjj]

fuzzyfuzzyfungus[/url]":2p2o0rjj]

onkeljonas[/url]":2p2o0rjj]A picture of the songbook, magazine or other original source would make for some nice laughingstock material...

The great thing about stealing material from poor, powerless, and frequently illiterate people's cultural productions is that they are so courteous about not leaving pesky evidence lying around; which makes the first person who can afford a real publisher look so much more original. This isn't so much an issue for written works, obviously, since even in cultures with traditions of epic poetry and similar stuff of considerable length, the sheer limitations of performance from memory mean that there often isn't any single definitive version; just some number of substantially similar performances woven out of the same set of themses; until after the oral culture has died off and the classicists have compiled a preserved specimen; but music is something that shows up in practically any human culture, regardless of whether or not they even have the concept of musical notation; much less the resources to publish.

And it's a safe bet that most of the people singing either 'we will' or 'we shall' overcome were those who certainly hadn't overcome yet.

I'm not sure my point came across.
The story makes the copyright holders look like dicks. A picture of one of the earlier sources would make them "Nelson haha" worthy.

No, that's what I was responding to: the copyright holders in this case are acting like dicks about something they virtually certainly neither created nor duly purchased from someone who did; but the work in question is of the sort that doesn't 'fossilize well' in terms of easily demonstrated counterexamples that either prove something has aged out of copyright or wasn't the work of the alleged author at all.

Spirituals, work songs, folk songs generally, tend to be older than dirt and so very suspicious except for copyright claims that only cover the author's specific performance/variation/etc. of one; but they also tend to have their origins in places where lyrics don't get written down and published as a matter of routine; and authors are often obscure or unknown even to people who know the song.

This doesn't mean that there are zero counterexamples and preserved publications demonstrating a prior claim; but it is a genre that's comparatively safe to plunder compared to contemporary music or written materials in societies that keep a lot of paper records around.

The article mention several written sources though: At least the miners Union magazine and the songbook.

I think his point is that the scumbags assumed there wasn't any sources, due to fact that these types of songs often don't have any. They assumed this meant they were free to engage in this chicanery.

 

[onkeljonas]

groghunter[/url]":35fox8t2]

onkeljonas[/url]":35fox8t2]

fuzzyfuzzyfungus[/url]":35fox8t2]

onkeljonas[/url]":35fox8t2]

fuzzyfuzzyfungus[/url]":35fox8t2]

onkeljonas[/url]":35fox8t2]A picture of the songbook, magazine or other original source would make for some nice laughingstock material...

The great thing about stealing material from poor, powerless, and frequently illiterate people's cultural productions is that they are so courteous about not leaving pesky evidence lying around; which makes the first person who can afford a real publisher look so much more original. This isn't so much an issue for written works, obviously, since even in cultures with traditions of epic poetry and similar stuff of considerable length, the sheer limitations of performance from memory mean that there often isn't any single definitive version; just some number of substantially similar performances woven out of the same set of themses; until after the oral culture has died off and the classicists have compiled a preserved specimen; but music is something that shows up in practically any human culture, regardless of whether or not they even have the concept of musical notation; much less the resources to publish.

And it's a safe bet that most of the people singing either 'we will' or 'we shall' overcome were those who certainly hadn't overcome yet.

I'm not sure my point came across.
The story makes the copyright holders look like dicks. A picture of one of the earlier sources would make them "Nelson haha" worthy.

No, that's what I was responding to: the copyright holders in this case are acting like dicks about something they virtually certainly neither created nor duly purchased from someone who did; but the work in question is of the sort that doesn't 'fossilize well' in terms of easily demonstrated counterexamples that either prove something has aged out of copyright or wasn't the work of the alleged author at all.

Spirituals, work songs, folk songs generally, tend to be older than dirt and so very suspicious except for copyright claims that only cover the author's specific performance/variation/etc. of one; but they also tend to have their origins in places where lyrics don't get written down and published as a matter of routine; and authors are often obscure or unknown even to people who know the song.

This doesn't mean that there are zero counterexamples and preserved publications demonstrating a prior claim; but it is a genre that's comparatively safe to plunder compared to contemporary music or written materials in societies that keep a lot of paper records around.

The article mention several written sources though: At least the miners Union magazine and the songbook.

I think his point is that the scumbags assumed there wasn't any sources, due to fact that these types of songs often don't have any. They assumed this meant they were free to engage in this chicanery.

Ahh. Now I gets it!

 

[ChickenHawk]

I've heard it claimed that the only copyrighted line in the 12 days of Christmas is "Five Golden Rings". Anyone know a) if its true and b) if these guys fancy a crack at that one?

 

[ChickenHawk]

99 Percent Pure[/url]":he9bzes9]White folks keep that foot on us darkies' necks, no matter our achievements,not even if we've earned them billions, i.e., Bill Cosby.

Err, what?

Look, I grew up in the 80's, I looked up at Bill Cosby as my unofficial-tv-dad... I didn't want to believe, but even I have to admit something smells fishy with his conduct with so many girls reporting the same thing.

 

[심돌산]

99 Percent Pure[/url]":1lljyfgj]

The half-white warmongering Obama hasn't worked to improve the plight of blacks or anyone else that's not in his ninth circle of hell, having kept most of the Clinton/Bush staff for years now. Like the Congressional Black Caucus, in fact, most all black "elected" officials, even at the local level, his theme song should be Stevie Wonder's "You Haven't Done Nothing."

But wouldn't that be cultural appropriation?

 

[심돌산]

ChickenHawk[/url]":2k0ewiyq]

99 Percent Pure[/url]":2k0ewiyq]White folks keep that foot on us darkies' necks, no matter our achievements,not even if we've earned them billions, i.e., Bill Cosby.

Err, what?

Look, I grew up in the 80's, I looked up at Bill Cosby as my unofficial-tv-dad... I didn't want to believe, but even I have to admit something smells fishy with his conduct with so many girls reporting the same thing.

Please take your foot off of Mr. Cosby's neck.

 

[Krugar]

This case has a lot standing for it.

We must be also thankful to the late Pete Seeger for his amazing work trying to understand the origins of the song, film producer Simone Sheffield for her research in the matter when she tried to gain usage rights for the film "The Butler", and the Ohio City Council for a couple of activities that purposely ignored the right holders outrageous claim.

Without their prior work, these hero lawyers would have a lot of trouble coming up with this case.

 

[jasonridesabike]

Wickwick[/url]":1jhf22kc]Compared to the muddy mess around Happy Birthday this one seems like a slam dunk.

Right? If I were the rights holder I'd be thinking about how I can settle this so as to release copyright voluntarily without going to trial and opening myself up to followup litigation by past licensees.

 

[Sixclaws]

iPirateEverything[/url]":21w9jijl]Get them all!

One by one!

Hopefully others will notice and this will snowball so we can get some of our (locked up) culture back.

As long as they don't target The Mouse they're pretty safe to sue everyone else.

 

[PRMan]

jonah[/url]":izevi6cx]The defendants are going to be kicking themselves when they realize that if they'd just approved the use of the song in the documentary then their gravy train wouldn't have come to an end.

This kind of situation is exactly why we need short, rational copyright terms. Once something is 30+ years old, it should be in the public domain. Full stop. The initial laws reflected this, with 28-year copyright terms.

I have no issues copying anything beyond 28 years old. Anything beyond that is my stolen property and rightfully belongs to me.

 

[PRMan]

fuzzyfuzzyfungus[/url]":2ru9l7ni]

Coriolanus[/url]":2ru9l7ni]You know what's also egregious? The "I Have a Dream" speech and other speeches by MLK, Jr. are still under copyright (obtained by MLK himself and owned by the estate).

Aside from the nasty bit of slogging over whether the speech was a 'performance' or a 'general publication'(which, in 1963, would have left it in the public domain unless explicitly registered when published) is there anything terribly sordid about the King materials?


There are some questions about whether the beneficiaries of the King estate are actually as interested in using it to advance civil-rights causes as they claim; rather than succumbing to the classic 'charity cancer' where an allegedly noble organization gradually ends up doing less and paying its 'leadership' more; but that isn't a copyright problem: an author's heirs don't have any specific obligations(barring something baked into the will) to dedicate their inheritance to anything in particular, so even pure self enrichment would be in line with anyone else whose daddy wrote something popular in the 60s.

I'm skeptical of the public-interest benefits of providing his work with 95 years of copyright protection; but that's exactly what any other author of the time and circumstance would get, so it's a quibble with copyright terms in general, not that specific author or work.

This case, like the happy birthday one, is a lot sleazier because the copyright itself is effectively a fraud; so all the proceeds are dirty, no matter how allocated. You don't have to like King's heirs; but the claim that he is the author of a creative work is pretty open-and-shut; with the only real dispute being the technicalities of what, if any, registration was required to satisfy the law then in effect(irrelevant now, since the Berne convention has largely eliminated copyright formalities except as modestly advantageous additional protections under certain circumstances, with fixation being automatic).

Copyright was invented to give us MORE creativity, not let MLK Jr's heirs sit around on their fat, lazy butts and do nothing with their lives.

That, combined with the fact that it's about all about freedom, makes it particularly egregious.

 

[rick*d]

"Let us not eat lettuce."
"No more BLT's"


Upvote if you get the reference.

Edit to add the link for you young punks. Now get off my lawn!

 

[rick*d]

Sixclaws[/url]"ygx4dn9]

iPirateEverything[/url]"ygx4dn9]Get them all!

One by one!

Hopefully others will notice and this will snowball so we can get some of our (locked up) culture back.

As long as they don't target The Mouse they're pretty safe to sue everyone else.

The worst part of that is Disney keeps pushing copyright extensions in fear of the day that Steamboat Willie enters the public domain, claiming they will lose control over Mickey Mouse when that happens. First of all, why should the public care about that, just because Mickey Mouse is a popular children's character? But most of all, Disney hopes we'll all forget that Mickey Mouse is also trademarked, and trademarks don't expire, so the whole Steamboat Willie crap is a lie - especially since Disney doesn't sell or show Steamboat Willie anymore.

Someone should sue the mouse, and take him to the cleaners. The mouse is evil.

 

[potato44819]

I gotta say, hearing "Happy Birthday" sung in restaurants these days is quite nice.

 

[rick*d]

onkeljonas[/url]":3nrhle5y]A picture of the songbook, magazine or other original source would make for some nice laughingstock material...

The problem is that most African songs and Negro Spirituals were passed down verbally by illiterate people, and their white owners certainly weren't about to record them.

 

[rick*d]

Kazper[/url]":17u2iv41]

fuzzyfuzzyfungus[/url]":17u2iv41]

Coriolanus[/url]":17u2iv41]You know what's also egregious? The "I Have a Dream" speech and other speeches by MLK, Jr. are still under copyright (obtained by MLK himself and owned by the estate).

Aside from the nasty bit of slogging over whether the speech was a 'performance' or a 'general publication'(which, in 1963, would have left it in the public domain unless explicitly registered when published) is there anything terribly sordid about the King materials?


There are some questions about whether the beneficiaries of the King estate are actually as interested in using it to advance civil-rights causes as they claim; rather than succumbing to the classic 'charity cancer' where an allegedly noble organization gradually ends up doing less and paying its 'leadership' more; but that isn't a copyright problem: an author's heirs don't have any specific obligations(barring something baked into the will) to dedicate their inheritance to anything in particular, so even pure self enrichment would be in line with anyone else whose daddy wrote something popular in the 60s.

I'm skeptical of the public-interest benefits of providing his work with 95 years of copyright protection; but that's exactly what any other author of the time and circumstance would get, so it's a quibble with copyright terms in general, not that specific author or work.

This case, like the happy birthday one, is a lot sleazier because the copyright itself is effectively a fraud; so all the proceeds are dirty, no matter how allocated. You don't have to like King's heirs; but the claim that he is the author of a creative work is pretty open-and-shut; with the only real dispute being the technicalities of what, if any, registration was required to satisfy the law then in effect(irrelevant now, since the Berne convention has largely eliminated copyright formalities except as modestly advantageous additional protections under certain circumstances, with fixation being automatic).

I actually have no problem with his speeches being copyrighted. They are certainly artistic expressions. The problem there is the length of copyright as you allude to yourself. It should quite simply be out of copyright now. That's an entirely different discussion to this case though.

It's not like you can't find it online.

 

[onkeljonas]

Disney doesn't sell or show Steamboat Willie anymore.

Interestingly they began using steamboat Willie in the logo intro for movies a few years ago (before the castle logo).
Whether an attempt at retaining copyright or not I don't know.