Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Legal News Blogs -> Lawbeat

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Legal News

: Lawbeat

MLK Family: I have a claim!

By Mark Obbie

ADVERTISEMENTS

Is Martin Luther King's family greedy? That's the focus of a story that the Associated Press' Errin Haines broke on Thursday, which The New York Times followed today. Neither adequately explains to readers how intellectual-property rights work.There's no denying it's news. Haynes quoted King Center president Isaac Newton Farris, Jr., threatening litigation against the makers of T-shirts and other paraphernalia linking Barack Obama to MLK. Farris himself puts a financial motive on the table, explaining that the nonprofit center wants a cut of the proceeds if street vendors are cashing in on King's image. Farris offered another rationale to the Times' Robbie Brown:

“The law says that if you don’t assert and protect the right to an image, you can lose that right.”

Brown offers no other explanation of that, in her own words or from experts. The AP's Haynes doesn't touch on that at all, but did include this graf:

King's writings, likeness and voice are considered intellectual property, and almost any use — from graduate thesis papers to TV documentaries — are subject to approval by his estate, now administered by his surviving children, Martin Luther King III, Dexter King and the Rev. Bernice King. (Because Obama is an elected official, his words and image are in the public domain and can be used without permission.)

An IP expert probably would poke a bunch of holes in that -- doesn't even a president have remedies if his name and likeness are used without permission to endorse a product, for example? -- but the graf at least helps laymen understand the starting point for the discussion. What should have followed, in both stories, was at least a brief expert quote on the use-it-or-lose-it rationale. Could the King Center look the other way and not undercut its future IP rights? Both stories (and those that undoubtedly follow) should inform readers of that.

Full post as published by Lawbeat on November 15, 2008 (boomark / email).