It costs ten bucks to watch MLK's "I Have A Dream" speech. Ouch.

[frazzled]

7. MLK site: "Unlicensed use of the speech or a part of it can still be lawful in some circumstances ..

especially in jurisdictions under doctrines such as fair use or fair dealing."

Their entire statement:

I Have a Dream Copyright Information


Copyright Dispute: Because King's speech was broadcast to a large radio and television audience, there was controversy about the copyright status of the speech. If the performance of the speech constituted "general publication", it would have entered the public domain due to King's failure to register the speech with the Registrar of Copyrights. If the performance only constituted "limited publication", however, King retained common law copyright. This led to a lawsuit, Estate of Martin Luther King, Jr., Inc. v. CBS, Inc., which established that the King estate does hold copyright over the speech and had standing to sue; the parties then settled. Unlicensed use of the speech or a part of it can still be lawful in some circumstances, especially in jurisdictions under doctrines such as fair use or fair dealing. Under the applicable copyright laws, the speech will remain under copyright in the United States until 70 years after King's death, thus until 2038.

Deposition of Martin Luther King regarding copyright infringement.
Case File Number 63 Civ 2889, Civil Case Files; United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
Download the full deposition (PDF)

http://www.mlkonline.net/dream.html

However, it doesn't look like EMI is going very far to remove the whole (yes, that you tube video is the entire 17+ minutes) speech. Or at least perhaps around MLK Day.

Look, I believe the King family has the right to make money off of this, especially to support the many activities and costs of keeping up the King estate. And I especially believe they have the right to control who and where this speech can be used: there are contexts and persons I believe they have the right to deny use to, because it does not comport with the way in which their relative would have wanted it (say, in a vodka commercial, or by a hate group). They won their case fair and square. But I don't think they are being hard-assed about enforcing this: fair use seems to be widely interpreted.