Judging from the anti-immigration reform marches that swept the country Monday, the fight for the extension of rights brings out the best in people.

 

For over 40 years, we have associated inspiring words with the Civil Rights movement and its icons: freedom, courage, unity and justice. Now, a new word is about to join the list: copyright.

 

A dozen of Rosa Parks’ nieces and nephews have raised an objection to her will, all of them hoping to gain rights to her intellectual property, pictures and the use of her name.

 

They claim that Parks, suffering from dementia at the time, was under the coercion and influence of her friends Elaine Steele and Adam Shakoor when she signed over her affairs to them.

 

The family members are arguing that the two have profited from inaccurately using their privileges.

 

It seems like a noble cause. After all, Parks’ legacy is immensely influential in the history of our country.

 

Nevertheless, one cannot help but wonder whether the motivation for the suit is based on pure and righteous interest in preserving the good name of the family, or whether less gracious motives are involved.

 

During her lifetime, Parks was a walking legend, recognized by historians, schoolchildren and – to her dismay – the rap duo OutKast, which named a song after her.

 

After she passed away, the interest in her struggle and life grew even higher, and the potential for revenue rose accordingly.

 

It is disenchanting and disheartening to see that what once represented the American ideal of freedom now being represented by greed. Rosa Parks does not exclusively belong to a foundation or even a family. She belongs to the American people and their history too.

 

The reduction of a symbol of model conduct to a token in a copyright game is disappointing. It may be played out in a courtroom between two private parties, but the verdict will affect all of America.

 

That decision will influence whether our children and grandchildren see the face of defiance when they open their social studies books. It will determine whether Parks continues to be an inspiration for new social movements. The judgment may also affect whether there is a calendar day or a memorial dedicated to her endeavors.

 

However the case plays out, we can hope that her memory is preserved through the correct business transactions, but also through paying respects to her by abiding by her wishes.

 

It is hypocritical to seek the right to promote her actions while at the same time claim that she did not know what she was doing.

 

Whatever her familial ties were, Parks did not trust her nieces and nephews as much as she trusted her friends. Perhaps during her lifetime, they did not show her the kind of devotion, loyalty and care as Steele and Shakoor did.

 

On the other hand, maybe she wanted to hand over the business side of her life to outsiders because she did not want it to divide her family.

 

She left her estate to those who were the closest to her heart, and who she felt were right for the job.

 

There is no arguing with the fact that if anyone knows how to do what is right, it’s Rosa Parks.