The March (1963, restored) -- except they gagged King

[Generic Other]

Beautifully restored footage from the March 1963. The National Archives released it on Youtube.

So why is King's voice silenced? Is it because the family holds the copyright? That a public and historic moment in American history is no longer accessible to the public domain? This is insulting to the memory of Dr. King. This incredible footage. His the only voice missing.

Why bother even restoring this footage if this is the end result?

[MADem]

1. I think the King family does have a tight grip on his work product.

I can't help but notice how clearly the issues are articulated in the signs.

Signs were way better back in the day--now they're hard to read and just not as "to the point."

[Generic Other]

2. Well they insulted the memory of their father here and dishonored themselves

in the process. I am so angry I feel like downloading the damn footage and editing it myself. Copyright be damned.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

3. This is a behind the scenes view.

[Generic Other]

4. The only time they mute the film is when King is speaking

because of copyright issues.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

5. Just skipped ahead. Yes, it's weird to have that part silenced.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

6. It's available on TeacherTube.

http://www.teachertube.com/viewVideo.php?video_id=20916

[Generic Other]

7. I had a bad reaction to King being silenced in the clip

So beautifully restored. So important historically. And the most important voice raised that day has been silenced. The irony of doing this to the film. Too bad the family and the archives couldn't have come to some agreement.

I rather suspect King himself would have been a bit put off by having been silenced no matter what the reason.

Anyway, I really should try and restore the film.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

9. Did they record direct from the mic he was on that day?

Most of the audio I've heard has been second hand off the PA.

[Generic Other]

11. The restored footage captured the introductions

from the podium perfectly. Just not when King spoke.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

12. I know that now.

[Generic Other]

14. I googled but can't find any info on this edit job

It is a mystery to me! I suspect copyright is the only possible explanation. I wonder who has paid for the rights to the audio of Dr. King's speech. Because if they are aggressive enough they can DMCA any Youtube videos they like. Dr. King's words may become increasingly harder to hear in the future.

Almost worse in some ways than a conscious effort to suppress.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

15. It's in the video description...

*The audio from 23:13 to 29:44 in this film has been redacted due to a copyright restriction by Dr. King's family.*

[MADem]

8. I suspect if enough people make an issue out of it, they'll relent and give it over.

I personally cannot understand how they are able to "claim" a speech made on public grounds to a national audience before a national monument, but somehow, they were able to do it.

Imagine the Kennedys trying to copyright "Ask not..." (which ironically, Kennedy stole from his school--really), or FDR's family trying to lock up "The only thing we have to fear...."

Some things belong to us all.

[Generic Other]

10. Supposedly you can't copyright anything a government employee makes

in the service of the government. I think this is the law regarding public rights to military footage, presidential speeches, government archives.

But yeah. Imagine the Gettysburg Address being protected by copyright for 75 years after Lincoln's death. 1949? Pathetic.

[MADem]

13. You're quite right.

The government should have hired MLK for the day!