In 2009, Steven Spielberg’s DreamWorks company paid the estate for film rights to King’s words, along with his life rights, which allow a person or company to make content based on an individual’s story. DreamWorks has yet to produce or direct Spielberg’s planned King biopic, but the rights have caused complications for numerous filmmakers. (Neither Spielberg’s literary agent nor King’s estate returned Broadly’s request for comment.)
You can buy dead people now? Spielberg has no shame.
In that regard, speeches aren’t treated differently than Mickey Mouse cartoons.
At least Mickey Mouse cartoons have finally begun dropping out of copyright into the Public Domain these days.
As MLK was shot in 1968, this won’t happen until 2039 or 2059.
Intellectual property is stupid exhibit bajillion:
Nobody was ever going to learn about MLK or Civil Rights in a movie by Spielberg or anyone else.
If you want to move past “content of their character” and “I have a dream”, your going to have to pick up a book.
I recommend ‘Prophet of discontent’ by Douglas and Loggins
I learned a lot when visiting the Museums in DC. Wife and I spent time in each and in most of them there was stuff about King and civil rights. Including bits of video or or incredible long passages of text talking about how he was a socialist and his dismay of capitalism.
Growing up I’ve read books, but never once learned about the socialism.
I’m sure Trump is trying to get all those removed.
Even less from a Hollywood movie.
If you made a true story about MLK Jr, you would include things that don’t make him look good like the affairs and prostitutes but more importantly it would show more about the COINTELPRO that the govt was operating to take down the civil rights movement and socialist movements in America.
The letters written to him by the FBI encouraging him to kill himself with info about his moral failings.
The similarities between how the establishment attacked MLK Jr privately and how they attack anybody with barely socialist policies overtly nowadays is not at all shocking.
Also, MLK Jr was way more of an activist than most people realize. The “I have a dream” speech was one of the tamest ones that conservatives love to prop up on MLK Jr Day.
Some More News had a really good video about what he actually stood for.
What’s far more likely is a studio like Angel putting out a heavily sanitized propaganda version ala Prager U.
In 2009, Steven Spielberg’s DreamWorks company paid the estate for film rights to King’s words, along with his life rights, which allow a person or company to make content based on an individual’s story. DreamWorks has yet to produce or direct Spielberg’s planned King biopic, but the rights have caused complications for numerous filmmakers.
There is a certain irony in Dreamworks having film rights for the 'I have a dream" speech and not working those rights. So more like Dream-not-works, amirite?
I’ll guess it’s that they don’t see a profitable way to use the content at the moment.
I prefer to think that over anything more nefarious, but that could be what’s going on, too. I’m assuming the rights will revert back to the estate after some amount of time, that’s what usually happens.
This article is from 2017 but if those rights are still tied up with Spielberg since 2009, that’d be a hell of a stretch for anyone to exclusively own a passage of historical value like “I Have a Dream” which is only 63 years old.
After King was assassinated, though, his children had little financial support. Using his accomplishments for business was one of their few options.
