Robert Lanier Anderson

Name: Estate of Martin Luther King, Jr., Inc. v. CBS, Inc. — Opinion of the Court
Author: Robert Lanier Anderson

Estate of Martin Luther King, Jr… (1999)

Summary

“Estate of Martin Luther King, Jr., Inc. v. CBS, Inc. — Opinion of the Court”, published in 1999, is a work by Robert Lanier Anderson. It explores elements such as general publication, Speech and copyright.

Quotes from Estate of Martin Luther King, Jr… (Robert Lanier Anderson)

Robert Lanier Anderson, Estate of Martin Luther King, Jr… (1999)

“ However, the features that make the Speech unique—e.g., the huge audience and the Speech's significance in terms of newsworthiness and history—are features that, according to the case law, are not significant in the general versus limited publication analysis. With respect to the huge audience, the case law indicates that the general publication issue depends, not on the number of people involved, but rather on the fact that the work is made available to the public without regard to who they are or what they propose to do with it. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Robert Lanier Anderson, Estate of Martin Luther King, Jr… (1999)

“ The district court likened the instant case to Letter Edged in Black on the ground that there was a lack of restriction on copying and free allowance of reproduction by the press. However, we do not believe the analogy fits—at least not at this summary judgment stage. Significantly, in Letter Edged in Black there were manifestations of the city's intent to distribute generally among the public at large that have no parallels in the evidence we can consider in the instant summary judgment posture. The city gave photographs of the sculpture to the public, not merely the press, upon request. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Robert Lanier Anderson, Estate of Martin Luther King, Jr… (1999)

“ In Burke, authority was granted to the host of an educational television program to broadcast on television; in the instant case, authority was granted to the press for extensive news coverage, also including broadcasts on television. In both cases, the authority was granted to a limited group for a limited purpose. In both cases, the restrictions on copying and reproducing were implied. The soundness of our analogy to Burke is also supported by the foregoing case law indicating generally that distribution to the news media for the purpose of news coverage is only a limited publication. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Robert Lanier Anderson, Estate of Martin Luther King, Jr… (1999)

“ In American Tobacco, the Supreme Court held that the display of a painting in a gallery did not constitute general publication putting the painting into the public domain. According to the Letter Edged in Black court, a cornerstone of American Tobacco was the fact that copying of the painting was strictly forbidden and the gallery strictly enforced the anti-copying rules. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Robert Lanier Anderson, Estate of Martin Luther King, Jr… (1999)

“ With the above principles in mind, in the summary judgment posture of this case and on the current state of this record, we are unable to conclude that CBS has demonstrated beyond any genuine issue of material fact that Dr. King, simply through his oral delivery of the Speech, engaged in a general publication making the Speech "available to members of the public at large without regard to their identity or what they intended to do with the work." Brown, 714 F.2d at 1091. A performance, no matter how broad the audience, is not a publication ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Robert Lanier Anderson, Estate of Martin Luther King, Jr… (1999)

“ Mister Maestro, 224 F.Supp. at 107 (" 'A sine qua non of publication should be the acquisition by members of the public of a possessory interest in tangible copies of the work in question.' ") (quoting Nimmer, supra, 56 Colum.L.Rev. at 197) ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Robert Lanier Anderson, Estate of Martin Luther King, Jr… (1999)

“ King's attempt to obtain statutory copyright protection on September 30, 1963 was effective, or whether it was a nullity because the Speech had already been forfeited to the public domain via a general publication. [2]
Under the regime created by the 1909 Act, an author received state common law protection automatically at the time of creation of a work. 1 Melville B. Nimmer & David Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright § 4.01 [B] (1998) [hereinafter Nimmer] . This state common law protection persisted until the moment of a general publication. [3] Silverman v. ”

Robert Lanier Anderson

Summary

Quotes from Estate of Martin Luther King, Jr… (Robert Lanier Anderson)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature