King, Martin, Estate of v. CBS
194 F.3d 1211 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Copyright Act of 1909, the public performance of a work does not in itself constitute a general publication that divests the work of its common law copyright, regardless of the size of the audience or the extent of media coverage. A general publication requires either the distribution of tangible copies to the public or an exhibition that permits unrestricted copying.
Facts:
- On August 28, 1963, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., as president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), delivered his 'I Have a Dream' speech during the March on Washington.
- The speech was delivered before a live audience of approximately 200,000 people at the Lincoln Memorial.
- The SCLC sought and successfully obtained wide press coverage for the March and the speech.
- The speech was broadcast live via radio and television to a nationwide audience of millions.
- On September 30, 1963, Dr. King applied for and subsequently received a federal copyright registration for the speech.
- In 1994, CBS, Inc. produced a historical documentary series which incorporated extensive footage of the speech, amounting to approximately 60% of the speech's total content.
- CBS did not seek permission from the Estate of Martin Luther King, Jr., Inc. to use the speech footage and refused to pay royalties.
Procedural Posture:
- The Estate of Martin Luther King, Jr., Inc. sued CBS, Inc. for copyright infringement in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, a federal trial court.
- CBS filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing the speech was in the public domain.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of CBS, holding that the speech's performance constituted a general publication.
- The Estate (as appellant) appealed the district court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the public performance of a speech to a massive in-person audience, broadcast live on television and radio, constitute a general publication that divests the speech of its common law copyright under the 1909 Copyright Act?
Opinions:
Majority - Anderson, Chief Judge
No, the public performance of a speech, even to a massive audience with extensive media coverage, does not constitute a general publication that divests the work of its common law copyright. The court reasoned that a long line of precedent under the 1909 Copyright Act firmly establishes that a mere performance of a work is not a publication. A general publication, which would place a work in the public domain, occurs only when tangible copies are distributed to the general public, or when the work is exhibited in a way that permits unrestricted copying. The court held that providing the speech to the news media for purposes of reporting a newsworthy event constitutes a limited, not a general, publication. The historical significance and newsworthiness of the speech are irrelevant to this legal analysis, as copyright law does not force a creator to choose between news coverage and copyright protection.
Concurring - Cook, Senior District Judge
No, the performance of the speech did not constitute a general publication. Judge Cook agreed with the result but argued for a more fundamental principle: a performance, by its very nature, can never constitute a publication in the absence of an authorized distribution of a tangible copy. He asserted that factors such as audience size, media coverage, and the public's opportunity to copy are entirely irrelevant for performed works like speeches. This bright-line rule avoids what he termed the 'legal fiction' of classifying a broadcast to millions as a 'limited publication,' and instead relies on the clear distinction between performance and the distribution of tangible copies.
Dissenting - Roney, Senior Circuit Judge
Yes, the public performance under these circumstances constituted a general publication. The dissent was a single paragraph that adopted the reasoning of the district court, which held that Dr. King's performance, coupled with the wide and unlimited reproduction and dissemination that the organizers encouraged, was a general publication that placed the speech in the public domain.
Analysis:
This decision strongly reaffirms the traditional copyright doctrine that 'performance is not publication' under the 1909 Act, even in the face of modern mass media. It clarifies that authors of newsworthy works do not forfeit their copyright protection merely by seeking and receiving extensive publicity. The ruling establishes a high evidentiary bar for defendants claiming a work is in the public domain, requiring proof of the distribution of tangible copies or explicit permission for unrestricted public copying, rather than just widespread exposure. This precedent protects creators of speeches, plays, and other performed works from inadvertently dedicating their work to the public by allowing it to be broadcast.
