Slashdot Mirror
Google Ordered To Remove Anti-Islamic Film From YouTube
cold fjord writes "The Verge reports, 'Google and YouTube must scrub all copies of Innocence of Muslims, a low-budget anti-Islam film that drew international protest in 2012, at the behest of an actress who says she received death threats after being duped into a role. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has granted a temporary takedown order on behalf of Cindy Lee Garcia, who filed a copyright claim against Google in an attempt to purge the video from the web. While actors usually give up the right to assert copyright protection when they agree to appear in a film, Garcia says that not only was she never an employee in any meaningful sense, the finished film bore virtually no relation to the one she agreed to appear in. In a majority opinion, Judge Alex Kozinski said she was likely in the right.' — Techdirt has extensive commentary on the ruling that's worth reading. It seems likely there will be an appeal, with the distinct possibility that Google and the MPAA will be on the same side."
...Streisand Effect.
- In Soviet Korea, only old people loose all their bases to Natalie Portman's petrified hot grits overlords.
Doesn't this mean that all videos critical of religion can potentially be subject to similar orders?
The "church of scientology" will be all over this one.
The constitutional protections, and by extension US citizens, take in in the ass yet again.
The Yes Men do this all the time.
How can someone who performed in a work-for-hire claim copyright? They own nothing other than the cash they were paid for their services.
Rather than Streisand herself she should just change her name. It sucks to have to do so but that's her only recourse.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
I generally respect American-style freedom of speech when it comes to stupid and distasteful things. (I am not a US citizen). However, this isn't only about freedom of speech - it's about defamation and slanders. If it falsely makes it looks like the actors supported this film in a way they did not, they have every right to sue and try to get this taken down.
Unfortunately, it won't really help their reputations though. They might want to consider posting their own followups for clarifications on their positions.
I actually agree with this. I don't care if Fred Phelps screams messages of bigotry and hate, but I sure as hell would draw the line if he misrepresented MY opinions within his messages.
And in other news, King Canute has officially commanded the tide to stop coming in. We'll keep you abreast of any late breaking details from this fascinating story.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
You just... don't. Google!
Hmm /.?
Because if she succeeds is suppressing the film, she gets to keep her head.
But meanwhile, because even the more marginally sane decisions of the "Ninth Circus" are routinely blown away by the SCOTUS, this one will certainly not survive. Garcia therefore has a window of a few months to arrange for a new identity.
Oh why are you bringing this back.. LET IT DIE.
The more you talk about it, the more you're spreading it. Great job on re-igniting the flames.
While it's pretty obvious why everyone involved wants this particular issue to go away, it would be...striking... if that sort of legal reasoning didn't end up causing even more of a disturbance among American corporations and their assorted hired guns than the movie did among the hicks 'n zealots subset.
Basically, something that looked a whole lot like a work for hire is suddenly not a work for hire anymore because the hireling didn't really approve of the changes made elsewhere in the production process. It's hard to imagine a theory much more dramatic than that, for any company doing business in copyrighted work slapped together by teams of employees.
In fairness, I don't envy the actress who now enjoys the attention of some of the real dregs of abrahamic monotheism, even by the tepid standards of the genre; but the idea that that makes the movie no longer a work for hire (rather than, say, a reckless endangerment suit) has no obvious 'bright line' boundaries that would prevent it from applying to much less dramatic situations. They say that doing 'rights clearance' in film sucks already, imagine if every cast member, and maybe even the memorable extras, gets veto power based on whether they approve of the post-production special effects or not... That'd be fun to try to insure.
The complainant is not a random critic who disagrees with the content of the film.
It's close enough as to make no difference. Do you really think that EVERY actress/actor who finds the released movie different than the one she/he worked on can get the movie pulled when they have ZERO ownership of it? Absurd.
The movie was never really a problem anyway - all of the protests against it were shams, as are death threats against the actress (obviously). And yet we are willing to let any person who appeared in a movie have a say over release and distribution... it will never work.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I am not aware of a constitutional right to commit fraud. The project this person agreed to appear in bore zero resemblance to this one, and while it is true--she definitely has no right to control the work product she agreed to appear in, she has every right to sue over this other work that essentially puts her in the crosshairs of terrorists--totally without permission.
Who did what now?
The attitude against free speech is actually beyond majority status. New restrictions will pass easily.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
This case is not really about an Anti-Muslim film but the intricacies of copyright law and motion picture industry practices. So no matter the outcome, there is little significance.
> The publicity can only help Ms. Garcia in this case, as making her disapproval known will likely help stop the death threats.
Actually if there was a fatwa put out with her name on it, then the threats won't stop unless it was rescinded.
In any case, all it does is prove to extremists that death threats are an effective means towards censorship.
And even an IDIOT understands that actresses do not at all necessarily endorse what the characters they play are doing, or in fact even the main message of the movie because after an actress is doing a JOB?
People do it ALL that time: example - Wesley Crusher and the hate Will Wheaton had to endure from Trekkies with no life.
It happens all the time. Actors who play disgusting characters have a hard time constantly. Ralph Fiennes' career stagnated a bit for his rather brilliant portrayal of that SS officer in Schindler's List.
Now ramp it up with a bunch of religious fanatics....
The actors don't have a copyright unless rights are granted by the film maker. The script writers have a copyright (unless they're W2 employees) and the cameramen have a copyright (unless they're W2 employees) but the actors have nothing. Copyright vests in whoever puts the work into a fixed form or in their W2 employer if they are acting as an employee. There are a dozen or so exceptions but "actor" isn't one of them.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
The religion of peace, and if you make fun of it we will kill you.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
Actor: Please, Judge, this modification weren't what I signed for
Judge: True, burn all copies of: The Crow, Stargate Director's, etc.
Sanity? What for?
Stupidity? Welcome home.
George Lucas will love this. He'll finally have what it takes to get rid of all those embarassing copies of a Star Wars Christmas.
And every actor or actress that has appeared in a steaming shitpile can claim they were "duped" and demand that those films be pulled, too.
If she got paid, she got paid. Her rights ended at getting paid.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
I watched it way back when it was being used as the excuse for Benghazi. At first I thought I was being trolled and that it was some joke video people were pointing to instead.
It's like a bad college freshman film class assignment. It was so bad I had to stop halfway through to wash my brain out. And you can tell the "anti-Muslim" language was overdubbed because the overdub audio is so clean.
If there's one reason it should be completely removed from existence, it's because of how horribly bad the thing is.
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
It seems that every time extremists resort to threats and violence, they have gotten the censorship they were seeking.
Many newspapers are now self-censoring for fear of violence. Is this really where we are headed?
it will probably be reversed (these left-wing nitwits are so nutty they are the most-reversed of all the federal circuit courts)
That being said, however, there is a very important point here that ought to frighten Hollywood (and some computer game makers, too) ... this appears to assert an entirely new and VIRAL copyright / "intellectual property" concept. It used to be that a complete film carried a copyright held by the company that released the film... but THIS ruling appears to establish the idea that each performer in a film has his/her own (automatic and implied) copyright over his/her performance that is not tied to any contract and may be invoked at any random time after the film is released, leading to the film being banned. WOW! That will become a VERY toxic precedent if allowed to stand.
Personally, I think the impact on Hollywood of such a precedent might be amusing... I've little sympathy for the jerks in that industry and their insincere pretenses about "free speech", "oppression", etc. Decade by decade we've all seen them fawn over cause X, or cause Y, always claiming to be for the "little guy" oppressed by "the man" as they pretend to be for all forms of free speech and "speaking truth to power" ... but after the Benghazi raid, Hillary Clinton (then Secretary of State) promised the families of the dead that the filmmaker would be found and punished (this was before anybody knew his identity and knew he had a probation violation on record that could be used as a pretense) and indeed the maker of this film was found and jailed for over a year (on the pretense that he violated his probation by logging onto the internet and uploading the video). When the federal courts ordered California to release non-violent prisoners to alleviate prison overcrowding, this guy was kept in jail (re-located by the feds to a jail in Texas) while convicted rapists and murderers were released. Did ANYBODY in Hollywood speak out about this (the first filmmaker in the US to ever be jailed for making a film) case??? Nope. Saint Obama and Saint Hillary would be harmed by any criticism and so there couldbe none. Hollywood people are phonies when they posture about freedom, or standing up to power.
Way to prove the point.
How many Christians beheaded someone over Piss Christ?
Yeah, zero.
First, are you SERIOUSLY asserting that any time we see a movie we should believe that the actors and actresses (the actual people paid to do the performances) believe in all the stuff their CHARACTER say?!?!? I can believe that the insane 9th circuit court thinks that, but it might come as a shock to the actors who performed in the Harry Potter films, and people like Kenneth Branagh who have played NAZIs (and in his case an actual planner of the Holocaust) in films might have a thing or two to say about that...
Second, If an actor/actress thinks his/her performance was abused (and which one hasn't complained about the editing of his/her scenes and dialog?) the this is a matter of contract law; it's NOT an excuse to invent a new copyright claim (that participants in a production have an unwritten, non-negotiable, but enforceable copyright on their own performances)
Ah liberals and democrats, when reality doesn't fit your way, throw a hissy fit. Facts, nasty things right.
Om, nomnomnom...
you do realize this is all orchestrated by bankers and aristocracy that have ruled the world the last 2000 years or so?
obama and major democrats all but paid off piss ants in the whole scheme of things - albeit well paid off and good little order taking piss ants.
you should really read into how the CIA (the guys above obama) manipulate the muslim world to create this perpetual hate of the west.
From the first-linked article:
'...she later found her footage had been edited for the new film and overdubbed with one of the most controversial lines: "Is your Mohammed a child molester?"'
It sounds like she is in precisely the scenario you describe.
Time for a good ol' streisand effect. Lookee here:---
Pirate Bay #1
Pirate Bay #2 (720p)
Pirate Bay #3 (640x360)
Personally I always thought this movie was just racist/Islamophobic dreck, but now with the government finally finding a convenient excuse to censor it, I'm downloading all three of these copies and will be seeding them indefinitely once downloaded.
Liberty in your lifetime
What do I have to do to get them to take down all the anti-Christian, anti-Hindu, anti-Buddhist, anti-anti-free speech videos?
I clicked on the link from Slashdot homepage (classic - as in Coke) and now I'm in BETA for the article. I chose CLASSIC in the footer for the familiar and FUNCTIONAL interface and it took me back to the homepage. Ok. Clicked on the comments link for the story and back into BETA. I don't want to be in BETA. If I wanted to be in BETA, I would not have clicked CLASSIC.
After clicking around I discovered it has done this to all the articles for which I wanted to read the comments - except the BitCoin one.
Well that is it for me.
I'm writing this as a courtesy to the site maintainers - I don't expect this comment to be rated highly as it is both off-topic and a criticism of the prevailing maintainer paradigm - I write this to the community. I have really enjoyed reading Slashdot. I come for the comments, sometimes the articles. With BETA, I have also come to the realisation that I also come for the simple layout (it doesn't get in the way of my enjoyment of the primary reasons I come to this site). I for one do not welcome the (not so new) 'BETA overlords' of Slashdot.
I would like to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to all those who have commented on articles presented in Slashdot. I have found the 'insightfuls' very insightful. The 'interestings' educational and occasionally inspiring. And to the 'funny's', there has been some moment where my whole day has changed (for the better) because of a simple quipe ( like taking an axe to a server to win a hacking contest) to the imaginary dialogues and obtuse references to pop-geek culture.
Regards,
JaAC
Just another Anonymous Coward.
As though that Amendment was worth the characters comprising it, anymore.
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
Artistic freedom should win the day on this one. This is precisely why I am an atheist. Very little good, if any, comes out of religion.
Fix it and no one will need to correct you in the future! Although, bad grammar is a good way to make anonymous friends.
In essence she asks that because there are fanatics that may harm her as they refuse to follow the law she begs the court to restrain the showing of a film. To me it is vital that the law never bends simply because any group of people might be enraged. Essentially the judge acts as if there is some validity in the feelings of the fanatics and to some extent establishes their version of Islam.
If the actor was male, the movie would stay.. more female privilege at the expense of freedom.
who you are not allowed to criticize.'
-- Voltaire
You can post all the anti-Jesus, anti-Buddhist, or whatever you want. Everybody has a right to an opinion. Unless, of course, that opinion is critical of Islam. Then your lucky if don't get killed because of some fatwa.
But lets all bend over, and grease ourselves up for an ideology that is far less tolerant that the Nazis ever dreamed of being.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
Why do only Muslims get this special treatment.
ah, republicans, for whom trickery and outright lawbreaking is ok and the crying starts as soon as a judge gets involved.
Garcia was hired to act a part in the film. She has no copyright in the film. She has no ownership in the movie in any way, certainly not in her performance alone. The death threats are irrelevant for the issue she's sued on. It's an absurd notion. It doesn't matter that she feels misled into performing in a film she wouldn't appear in otherwise. Her contract was to act in that film, not specifically to act in a film with specific artistic merits. It is very very unlikely that one of the material terms of her contract was for the film to depict muslims in a flattering manner. I read the judge's opinion as well as the dissent. It is very clear that the judge erred.
... but you lost me. What does this have to do with this plaintiff, from one long time Law & Order fan to another? I understand what you mean by Comcast, but in this case a judge made a ruling that is completely unreasonable given the Court's experience with IP issues. One person joked that it was like he was replaced with an alien or something. In this case, it wasn't big business interests that prevailed, but the interest of a single person that, basically, regrets performing in a film, and thinks that she can erase her performance forever. What's her next course of action, sue IMDB for fraudulently claiming she appeared in the movie? Jim Carey was in a movie recently, that sequel to Kick Ass. He regrets having done the film. But he accepted that he chose to make the film.
As a Muslim, even though I'm offended by the film, I don't think such a big deal should be made out of this. The only way to win the game of inflammatory Internet actions/comments/videos is to not play.
Them moslems have tons and TONS and TONS of anti-Christian diatribes uploaded on the Net.
They even have videos of them bastards cutting off the heads of the so-called "infidels".
What the fuck is WRONG with the West ?
Why has the West become so pro-Islam ???
ah, republicans, for whom trickery and outright lawbreaking is ok and the crying starts as soon as a judge gets involved.
Sorry there AC, did you miss the part where Obama has had several of his "agency" regulations thrown out as being unconstitutional. Or how about the more information that comes out on the IRS, the more it has his fingerprints all over it. Never mind that he'll never have a charge laid over it, he's black, and therefore above suspicion.
Funny how us foreigners can see this, but liberals and democrats can't.
Om, nomnomnom...
And then decides she doesn't want the product of that to be distributed anymore, that's her right. This is one of the best justifications of enforcing a copyright you could possibly come up with.
And for the same reason that if I stand in the middle of your workplace or middle of the public highway and start screaming obscenities I can be arrested and detained and even jailed for repeat offences IN ANY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD.
Yes, that's right, even in the USA.
The "point" of this "movie" was solely to cause trouble. Even the USA has the offence of "Fighting Words".
It's just a jump to the left...
It's just as a Christian you don't notice your special treatment.
Know the source of the problem and call it out for what it is.... the truth will stop the problems. ...... KaBoom Nuclear SHTF!!
Otherwise
Jacob battled god all night and for it was given the name Israel meaning "he who battles god". Islam means "voluntary submission to God". So god sent the Mesopotamian originating nomadic tribe of jacob/israel .. Israelite into the forever battle against the Muslims, invading their land. Christianity believes being saved by sacrificing the savior.
But here is a problem with these three. The devil (alien) being Jesus biological father who was not wed to Mary, could have but didn't stop the torturous death of Jesus and took glory in it and previously tried to get Abrams (Abraham) to kill his own son..
And that is how the world was turned upside down... lying prince of the world. So what is really happening with the three above?
Apparently the so called "god", "Allah", "YHWH" prince wants war, for these three can only play out to be WWIII nuclear.
Hinduism oldest religion in the world is "whatever inclusive" and Buddhism "the awakened one".
Add all this up and what do you get? A house fighting against itself will fall. The house of Humans.
Option B:
Realize its all just a trick.... The result of the trick to get the human species to evolve from a subconscious bicameral state, to an abstract conscious state to finally awake where both are integrated to super-consciousness where we will be introduced to the civilization of the universe as we will fully understand the usefulness and limitations of the tool of abstraction and the big picture goal of expanding universal content. Where things will be done on earth as it is in the heavens. Even telepathy (transmission and reception of energy patterns at the quantum physics level) requires interpretation into the abstract and if you interpret something wrong what will your response be, a kaboom?.
Don't believe this? World protest indicate the people of the planet are seeing past the intentional deceptive misuse of our abstract tools.
I know that extensions exists to download video, but Google should just provide this button at least temporary before the content gets taken down.
This makes sure that information does not get lost.
I plan to open an eatery called Gay Mohammed's Bacon Whiskey Bar
All 5 seconds worth. I'm not sure how she could have a copyright claim over such a short period of time. Statements and the like are not normally covered by copyright and there has to be a creative element involved (IANAL).
We are allowing Islam in particular, and religion in general, to constrain our basic freedoms for the sake of their faiths. This has to stop.
* someone makes a movie outing islam as a violent death cult
* upon release of the movie someone appearing in that movie gets death threats by muslims
* instead of trying to get their hands on the people making the death threats the authorities decide to censor the internet
doesn't this already prove how correct the movie is?
Indeed. Imagine you're a model. You're given a contract to model for a new line of underwear, or whatever.
You expect that you might show up on a Haynes ad, but unbeknownst to you, they actual use your image - with a little photoshopping - in a propaganda ad (maybe a hate ad etc).
The original contract was to be an underwear model. The use of your image is not valid in the new context.
In this case, the woman contracted for a movie of one type, then had her lines dubbed-over and was used for something completely different.
You (and I, and every other individual citizen in the United States) have no *RIGHT* to view any particular piece of work.
You have no "right" to walk in to Apple and see their business plans. You have no "right" to walk in to NBC and see the script for their latest TV pilot. You have no "right" to walk in to a random person's house to look at the rare Renoir they have hanging on their wall.
Copyright is, itself, a right. A right of the content CREATOR. Not a right of the content CONSUMER. Yes, copyright is *VERY* often abused by large corporations, but at its core, it protects the rights of the content creator to control how their work is distributed.
In this case, one person involved in a film had her *RIGHTS* violated. I as a random consumer did not have any of my rights violated - she did. (According to the court.) Just because something is "out there" does not mean that you have a right to it. Hey, there's a car just sitting in that parking lot! It's even unlocked! I must have a *RIGHT* to it, correct? That's what bazmail's comment implies.
Not blaming you, but you left out Larry Flynt.
"If the First Amendment will protect a scumbag like me, then it will protect all of you. Because I'm the worst."
Mr Flynt is still alive, if not kicking any longer.
I think you would have to stop being an idiot and completely misunderstanding whats actually happening
Does this surprise y'all, we have President who has expressed great enthusiasm for a Major Religion, run it seems by Mullahs, whose interpretation of the KORAN, which they claim is the basis of Sharia Law, which endorse the stoning of women, the genital mutilation of Female & single women children, the cutting of hands & feet & beheading, for some crimes, the start of the majority of Terrorism in the 20th & 21st century, the belief that women should covering up their hair an Faces, the discouragement of equality and education for women.....and I could go on & on. Just don't get me started on the current attitude towards our U.S. Constitution & Bill of Rights too!