Talk:I've Been to the Mountaintop

Deletion of link to video
Diff of deletion: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27ve_Been_to_the_Mountaintop&diff=469206752&oldid=469114842 Deleted link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oehry1JC9Rk Do you mind enumerating the problems with this? If it's an external link to a YouTube video, isn't YouTube responsible for copyright issues? As I understand it, all a copyright holder has to do is to contact YouTube to have the video removed (IF there truly is a copyright violation). The material itself does not appear on Wikipedia. Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:12, 3 January 2012 (UTC) Found some info here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Youtube#Restrictions_on_linking Isn't this "fair use" since it's for educational purposes and it's not the entire speech? I don't see any logos on the video that indicate it is from a news broadcast, TV program or movie. What leads you to believe it's a copyright violation? Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * See Estate of Martin Luther King, Jr., Inc. v. CBS, Inc., in which the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that the King estate held the copyright to the text and video of King's speeches. (That case concerned "I Have a Dream", but I don't see why "I've Been to the Mountaintop" would be any different.)
 * In general, we assume YouTube videos of copyrighted performances are copyright violations unless it is clear the permission of the copyright owner has been secured. See WP:LINKVIO. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I read the article and it says the court found the speech belonged to King, but is his public delivery of the speech also covered by the copyright? Are you saying that even though he gave the speech in public, no one is allowed to film him and broadcast his speech? Or does the court case mean the text, the words themselves, are covered? I think it must be the latter, otherwise no one could film speeches. Do you have any reason to believe that this particular video of him delivering his speech in public is covered by a copyright? Do you have any reason to believe that excerpts from the speech as presented in the video are not fair use? Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * How can the news media legally broadcast excerpts from the thousands of speeches that public figures give every year without violating this novel interpretation of copyright law? Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * A month later and the video is still on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oehry1JC9Rk Is there still any reason to believe this is a copyright violation? Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The video is still available on YouTube. Since the copyright holder could have it removed just by making a simple request, that would lead me to believe that this video is considered to be "fair use" of a video of a historically important figure giving a historically important speech (his last). Ghostofnemo (talk) 15:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Excessive quotation flag
Please see United States Declaration of Independence. Would you also suggest that the Constitution be paraphrased? "The Constitution says that all males have the right to live their lives, to be free, and to try to achieve contentment." How about, if instead of quoting John F. Kennedy, we paraphrase him? "Kennedy suggested that people not ask what their government could do on their behalf, but instead suggested that people ask themselves what they could do on behalf of their government." "Churchill gave a speech and told the people of Britain that the only thing they needed to be afraid of was their own fear." Ghostofnemo (talk) 15:43, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 * This isn't an article about the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution, and in any event those documents are in the public domain. The King estate holds the copyright to this speech (see Estate of Martin Luther King, Jr., Inc. v. CBS, Inc. and the copyright information at the bottom of this page) and under copyright law Wikipedia may make fair use of only short portions of the speech.
 * Even if the speech were not encumbered by copyright, this is Wikipedia, not Wikiquote or Wikisource. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article about a speech, not selected portions of the speech. The article should summarize what secondary sources have written about the speech. See I Have a Dream for contrast. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 15:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the four quotes in this article make it a better article than the I Have a Dream article, because you get a feel for what King was actually saying. The I Have a Dream article, in contrast, doesn't give the reader a very clear idea what King actually said. Ghostofnemo (talk) 15:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You're probably right about I Have a Dream. It would benefit from the use of a few more quotes of King's own words.
 * In this article, though, I think a summary style—together with a more selective use of quotes—would convey more information than the four blocks of text that are in the article now. Also, I think it lets us sidestep the copyright issue. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 16:00, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I made the edits suggested Tsumego (talk) 20:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

how long was that speech can that info be included in article?