Madonna finds a way to make her terrorism comments worse

For Madonna, it's not enough merely to compare the leaking of so-so music a little early as terrorism; oh no, she's gone a step further:

Madonna is defending herself against criticism after she posted Instagram photos of Martin Luther King Jr and Nelson Mandela that were altered to look like her own image on her new album.

Madonna’s cover for the album Rebel Heart is a closeup of her face with black string on it. Her social media posts show the faces of King and Mandela doctored to make it appear as though they have similar string on their faces. Some considered the posts offensive.

That's right, she's taken an image of a man who was assassinated, and another who spent decades in prison for his political beliefs, drawn on their faces, and is using to promote her "terrorism-victimised" record.

(That's leaving aside Mandela having actually committed what the State saw as a genuine acts of terrorism - proper terrorism, like blowing things up, rather than merely taping a few songs off the radio.)

“When I repost these images i am saying YES! These people are all Rebel Hearts in one way or another from Martin Luther King to Jesus to Nelson Mandela to John Lennon. YES! Lets [sic] celebrate them! The world needs more people like them. I hope to one day accomplish. 1 100th of what these Rebel Hearts have accomplished.

“As I Said in a previous post “I walk in the footsteps of Giants” and i will continue to do so G*D willing. They are my guiding light. #rebelheart #livingforlove.”

Now, obviously including John Lennon on the list is delightful in its own way - bracketing 'man who sat in a mansion writing songs about not having anything' with Martin Luther King makes it clear this is 'history' of the sort that Nike does sometimes to sell its plimsolls; that Madonna would include a man who was killed by a fan makes her overwrought wailing about victimisation ever more ridiculous.

I have a dream

You know what might be a nice gesture on the 50th anniversary of Martin Luther King's I Have A Dream speech?

How about if EMI - which holds the copyright on the recording - released it into the public domain?

I have a dream. I'll tell you what it is for £1.70

Martin Luther King's speeches, you might think, are so important they should be shared, and repeated, and used freely.

But King copyrighted them, and since his death, his estate has fought to ensure that use of his words generates revenue. Now, in order to squeeze a few extra quid out the man, they've signed up EMI to manage the rights.

Yes. EMI. The company are ecstatic:

Roger Faxon, the chief executive of EMI's music publishing division, said the move was not much of a departure for the music company because “extracts of many of his speeches are already used in musical compositions - and because we have expertise in ensuring that there is a proper licensing regime for intellectual property”.

Extracts of his speeches have turned up in songs, so it's not that different really. Likewise, EMI has released songs in which people play pianos, which means they'd be the perfect people to move a baby grand from one country to another.

And let's just take a second to review Faxon's assertion that EMI are some sorts of experts in ensuring licensing regimes. EMI. It's not like their business has spent the last decade flapping round like a plastic bag in a hurricane as their stuff vanishes off into darknets and peer-to-peer networks while their 'experts' suggest that suing single parents and postmen for tens of thousands of pounds is the answer, is it? Good lord, if EMI are experts in ensuring maximised revenue in an online marketplace, you'd hate to meet someone who only had half a clue, wouldn't you?

To be fair to the estate of Martin Luther King, the idea of appointing licensing 'experts' isn't totally motivated by greed, as revenue from the use of his speeches does help fund the Atlanta King Center:

Dexter S. King, chairman and chief executive of the King Estate, said that it wanted EMI “to monitor and bring under compliance the unauthorised usages of Dr King's words and intellectual property on the internet and digital media”, which would “increase the King Estate's ability to preserve, perpetuate, and protect the great legacy of Martin Luther King”.

Is strangling the rights to use his words really the best way to do that, though? If you really want to ensure King's legacy, does forcing people to pay to quote his most inspirational words really help with that in the long term?

Only John Lennon's piano can save us now

Martin Luther King's supreme sacrifice in the name of equality is set to be trivialised by a cheap stunt: the piano on which John Lennon wrote twee anthem Imagine is to be photographed on the site of King's murder.

Apparently the idea is to promote John Lennon albums ("promote peace") and is being done without the intention of pissing all over King's legacy and trampling his memory.

If the idea sounds a little drug-addled, you have to remember the idea and the piano belong to George Michael:

"The selection of this site evokes a deep sense of emotion for everyone," George Michael said.

"Capturing the image of this special piano on which a song of peace was composed is part of the heartbeat of this project."

It all gives off the same feeling that you get when you see parents getting their kids to stand next to war memorials (or that firefighters' bronze by the World Trade Center site) with big grins on their faces for happy holiday snaps. Trust Michael to raise this failure to understand the significance of place to a whole new level.