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.
I think the heart of the issue is That she signed a release for one use but the film was completely different that what she was told. To me it would seem that any release she signed would be invalid and she would have the same rights as someone who did not sign a release. Any film maker would know that everyone in the film must sign a release.
A person who has not commited a crime is innocent.
A person who is accused of committing a crime is innocent until proven otherwise
That person's beliefs, religious or otherwise are in and of itself not criminal. It is what that person does with those beliefs that makes all the difference.
And on the Eighth Day, Man created God.
If someone posts a photo taken by me I have a copyright claim.
If someone posts a photo taken of me by a hidden camera in the shower it's under a different law.
If someone posts a biography written by me I have a copyright claim.
If someone posts a biography written about me it might be libel, but not copyright infringement.
I really don't understand what kind of twisted logic they used to arrive at the conclusion that the actor has any kind of copyright claim, it's always belonged to the one pointing the camera or holding the pen. Assuming the cameraman is making a work for hire it'll pass from him to the company who hired him, the subject never had a claim nor was ever given a claim. It sounds like they wanted to arrive a conclusion and made bizarre leaps of logic to make it happen. I'm sorry but she should have filed a lawsuit and gotten a court to take it down, this copyright claim is simply fraudulent and to add insult to injury she should probably be prosecuted under the "penalty of perjury" clause.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
"Oops"?
The attack happened on Sept 11th just before the 2012 election.
You don't really think it was an accident that they blamed some film-maker and threw him in jail to deflect responsibility from themselves, do you?
He may be able to use contract law or the misappropriation/right of publicity laws but not copyright. You cannot copyright yourself or your likeness. Copyright is (or should be) for protecting the creative result of an artist.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
I am a vegetarian. What if I decide I am offended by meat by advertised?
Sounds crazy, but it really is the same thing. People decide what will offend.
Youtube commentator Pat Condell recently made a great video on the subject.
Choosing to be offended
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-sZag4LUNw&list=UUWOkEnBl5TO4SCLfSlosjgg