Slashdot Mirror
9th Circuit Will Revisit "Innocence of Muslims" Takedown Order
The Associated Press, as carried by ABC News, reports that "An 11-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Pasadena will hear arguments Monday by Google, which owns YouTube, disputing the court's decision to remove Innocence of Muslims from the popular video sharing service." At the heart of the earlier take-down order, which was the result of a 2-1 split from a 3-judge panel, is the assertion of copyright by actress Cindy Lee Garcia, who appeared in the film, but in a role considerably different from the one she thought she was playing.
Google is supported in its appeal by an unusual alliance that includes filmmakers, Internet rivals such as Yahoo and prominent news media companies such as The New York Times that don't want the court to infringe on First Amendment rights. Garcia has support from the Screen Actors Guild and the American Federation of Musicians. If the court upholds the smaller panel's ruling, YouTube and other Internet companies could face takedown notices from others in minor video roles.
The title is sarcastic. According to Wikipedia, the film is anti-muslim.
EFF and prior legal precedent say that there is no established right of copyright to actors in films... regardless of whether they appear there voluntarily or not.
The actor's role is different; it is that of an employee or contractor.
"innocence of muslims" really?
what an awkward for this to come up as people are held hostage by extremist muslims
Yes I know, not all muslims are like that, religion of peace, vocal minority, blah blah blah
You can defend a bear all you want, it's still gonna rip your face off
Then you will probably be happy to learn that the video is actually anti-Islamic.
a single wack-job
The hostages aren't even dead yet and our islamist apologists have already played it down.
Well, it goes many ways to Sunday, but long story short this has potential uses. Just imagine if an extra on Stupid Franchise That Needs To Die VII could get it yanked if "I didn't expect a certain character to make any appearances" could be a valid argument. (Though I joke, misrepresentation of contract is legally dishonest but should have been a tort with the production team, not a DMCA claim with hosts. She should have taken it one rung up the ladder, so to speak - Google is "too late" in that process.)
This exactly. Its not that the actress doesn't have rights here, it's that the court affirmed the wrong rights. If the filmmaker materially misrepresented the film or the role in writing, that should be a fairly straightforward lawsuit.
Why was this question censored with mod points? No matter being wrong, is a very valid concern. You people suck