"I have a dream", that my family will extort a whole lot of money out of non-profits to use my words and image.
WASHINGTON -- The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s family has charged the foundation building a monument to the civil-rights leader on the National Mall about $800,000 to use his words and image -- and at least one scholar thinks that Dr. King would find such an arrangement offensive.
The memorial is being paid for almost entirely through a fund-raising campaign led by the Martin Luther King Jr. National Memorial Project Foundation.
"I don't think the Jefferson family, the Lincoln family [or] any other group of family ancestors has been paid a licensing fee for a memorial in Washington," said Cambridge University historian David Garrow, author of a Pulitzer Prize-winning biography of Dr. King. ". . . [He would've been] absolutely scandalized."
Financial documents revealed that the foundation paid $761,160 in 2007 to Intellectual Properties Management Inc., an entity run by the King family. They also showed that a $71,700 "management" fee was paid to the family estate in 2003.
First off, nothing like quoting from a Rupert Murdoch owned newspaper wit a reputation for printing sensational stories. That's one step up from the National Inquirer.
Colin Powell was interviewed on Face the Nation as a board member for the monument. He Confirmed that the licensing fee for the monument did not go to the family, but to Philanthropic purposes.
Licensing fees are a typical capitalist fact of life because images have value.
Come on, unhinged, you are all for Capitalism when it benefits your side, but woe upon anyone else who tries to use the system for their benefit.
Is it because he's black?
Does it make a difference that some of Hitler's 20 million victims were socialists and members of the Red Army?
You are correct Laci; the interviews I have seen by board memmbers such as Colin Powell, speaking about the MLK memorial have all been very up front about licensing his image for it.
My understanding from those interviews is that the image of Martin Luther King Jr. belongs to the organization that Corretta Scott King set up on his behalf in Atlanta Georgia, for nonviolent social change. So, while it is true that some of MLK's remaining living family members sit on the board of that entity, and did approve the licensing of King's image for the monument, it is my understanding that the licensing money went to that foundation to continue the philanthopic efforts to which it is dedicated in King's name, and not to line the personal pockets of King's heirs.
Although if it had, so what? They ARE his heirs. But greed and selfishness have not been the leitmotiv of how King lived, or how his family has honored his memory.
It would not be the first time that the right had tried to slander the man or his family members.
Shame on the Murdoch machine, shame on Fringie; apparently he is unfamiliar with the sentiment that I know that Laci understands full well. "Honi soit qui mal y pense."
I will leave our resident Brit to expound on the historical significance; and as well, since he actually has more personal honor than apparently Fringie and his ilk.
"I have a dream", that my family will extort a whole lot of money out of non-profits to use my words and image.
ReplyDeleteWASHINGTON -- The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s family has charged the foundation building a monument to the civil-rights leader on the National Mall about $800,000 to use his words and image -- and at least one scholar thinks that Dr. King would find such an arrangement offensive.
The memorial is being paid for almost entirely through a fund-raising campaign led by the Martin Luther King Jr. National Memorial Project Foundation.
"I don't think the Jefferson family, the Lincoln family [or] any other group of family ancestors has been paid a licensing fee for a memorial in Washington," said Cambridge University historian David Garrow, author of a Pulitzer Prize-winning biography of Dr. King. ". . . [He would've been] absolutely scandalized."
Financial documents revealed that the foundation paid $761,160 in 2007 to Intellectual Properties Management Inc., an entity run by the King family. They also showed that a $71,700 "management" fee was paid to the family estate in 2003.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/king_monument_to_greed_4DTe3bj9QcHd7Y2Hpvmp1O
Doesn't that make MLK, decendants kinda pathetic, sad isn't it....
First off, nothing like quoting from a Rupert Murdoch owned newspaper wit a reputation for printing sensational stories. That's one step up from the National Inquirer.
ReplyDeleteColin Powell was interviewed on Face the Nation as a board member for the monument. He Confirmed that the licensing fee for the monument did not go to the family, but to Philanthropic purposes.
Licensing fees are a typical capitalist fact of life because images have value.
Come on, unhinged, you are all for Capitalism when it benefits your side, but woe upon anyone else who tries to use the system for their benefit.
Is it because he's black?
Does it make a difference that some of Hitler's 20 million victims were socialists and members of the Red Army?
You are correct Laci; the interviews I have seen by board memmbers such as Colin Powell, speaking about the MLK memorial have all been very up front about licensing his image for it.
ReplyDeleteMy understanding from those interviews is that the image of Martin Luther King Jr. belongs to the organization that Corretta Scott King set up on his behalf in Atlanta Georgia, for nonviolent social change. So, while it is true that some of MLK's remaining living family members sit on the board of that entity, and did approve the licensing of King's image for the monument, it is my understanding that the licensing money went to that foundation to continue the philanthopic efforts to which it is dedicated in King's name, and not to line the personal pockets of King's heirs.
Although if it had, so what? They ARE his heirs. But greed and selfishness have not been the leitmotiv of how King lived, or how his family has honored his memory.
It would not be the first time that the right had tried to slander the man or his family members.
Shame on the Murdoch machine, shame on Fringie; apparently he is unfamiliar with the sentiment that I know that Laci understands full well. "Honi soit qui mal y pense."
I will leave our resident Brit to expound on the historical significance; and as well, since he actually has more personal honor than apparently Fringie and his ilk.