Google Ordered To Remove Anti-Islamic Film From YouTube 321
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."
And In Other News... (Score:2, Informative)
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.
re: Dangerous precedent (Score:0, Informative)
Please RTFA. This isn't taken down because it's critical of religion. It's taken down because it falsely represents the views of the actors who were tricked into performing their roles. You're still free to condemn any religion, but you can't misrepresent the opinions of others without their consent.
Re:Copyright? (Score:5, Informative)
How can someone who performed in a work-for-hire claim copyright?
She's claiming that the work for hire contract was deceptive and is not valid. The judge apparently agrees.
When this story first broke, some people tracked down the film's creator. He seemed like a real scumbag who would certainly be capable of shit like that. He is an Egyptian Coptic Christian, and his people have certainly been fucked over by the Muslim majority in that country. But that movie seems like a terrible idea on many levels.
Re:Slander - not freedom of speech. (Score:4, Informative)
So make the statement yourself (without hiding behind the anonymity of Slashdot.)
You don't get to put words in someone else's mouth without their permission, though.
Re:Slander - not freedom of speech. (Score:3, Informative)
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.
While this may indeed be the case, this has nothing to do with copyright law. Actors working for hire have no copyright claims unless explicitly documented in their contract. Having this video taken down using copyright claims is a miscarriage of justice.
Actually it won't help. (Score:5, Informative)
> 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.
Laugh (Score:2, Informative)
The religion of peace, and if you make fun of it we will kill you.
Re:Garcia had to file this legal complaint (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Dangerous precedent (Score:2, Informative)
Censorship is intolerable, and this decision is unjustifiable. If you care about freedom of speech, you agree with me 100%.
radical change to the script (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Ridiculous assertion (Score:4, Informative)
You obviously didn't bother to even read the summary. She did win suit against the producer, which is why she can claim copyright on her image in this movie.
Re: In before... (Score:5, Informative)
Sigh.
No, publicity rights are a branch of state tort law. Copyrights are a sui generis branch of federal law.
And a copyright release is just a copyright license (or more rarely, an assignment), which means that it pertains to a particular creative work. A publicity release has to do with using someone's face, image, statements, etc. While you could conceivably have them both in the same form, it's rare that you'd need to or want to.
And I assure you, they are not related even the teeniest tiniest bit. Not in their policy goals, or how they originated, or which governments created them, or who gets them, or how long they last, or what they cover. There is no commonality.
Are you too lazy to google for the difference between copyrights and publicity rights? Perhaps this web page from the Library of Congress will help you out: http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/co... [loc.gov]
Re:In before... (Score:4, Informative)
If I made a movie making fun of the Bible today, how many death threats could I expect? Oh yeah. Zero.
This is quite not the case. Life of Brian [wikipedia.org], Franca Rame [wikipedia.org].
Re:In before... (Score:4, Informative)
> I am pretty sure that at the time it was completely normal in Christendom too to consider females adults after they first menstruate.
Actually that lasted until much, much later - Shakespeare's Juliette is a mere 12 years old and yet "younger than her are happy mothers made" - marriage age in Dutch colonies average 16 for boys and 14 for girls until the 17th century and it wasn't until the 20th century that most countries saw it go higher than age 20.
As late as the 1950's it was still legal for a minor below the age of consent to marry in most countries if she had parental permission. Since then this has largely changed- while minors can marry in most countries today (provided their parents consent AND sign an emancipation form) they cannot do so before the age of sexual consent anymore.
Now this doesn't mean we should approve of it, or that we cannot judge ancient practices by modern standards (if only to avoid repeating the mistakes) but we certainly should be consistent when doing so - and there is absolutely no religion or culture on earth (least of all Christendom and Judaism) which is innocent of this particular practice,