Google Loses Emergency Bid To Keep “Innocence Of Muslims” Film Online(techcrunch.com)
techcrunch.com
Google Loses Emergency Bid To Keep “Innocence Of Muslims” Film Online
http://techcrunch.com/2014/03/02/google-loses-emergency-bid-to-keep-innocence-of-muslims-film-online/
13 comments
As the dissent argues, it is debatable at best that an actor maintains a copyright over their part in a movie, even without an explicit grant of rights. Absent a clear precedent there, and considering the length of the performance, prior restraint should not even be considered. The Supreme Court has been very clear about this.
In fact, their only consideration of public interest is the statement which the EFF also found so objectionable: "But the First Amendment doesn’t protect copyright infringement".
> Youssef is still perfectly free to produce a cut in which her 5 seconds is excised or replaced and re-upload it to Youtube
I see no reference to this in the decision. On the contrary, I see:
> Concurrent with this opinion, we have issued an order directing Google to take down all copies of “Innocence of Muslims” from YouTube and any other platforms within its control and to take all reasonable steps to prevent further uploads.
In fact, their only consideration of public interest is the statement which the EFF also found so objectionable: "But the First Amendment doesn’t protect copyright infringement".
> Youssef is still perfectly free to produce a cut in which her 5 seconds is excised or replaced and re-upload it to Youtube
I see no reference to this in the decision. On the contrary, I see:
> Concurrent with this opinion, we have issued an order directing Google to take down all copies of “Innocence of Muslims” from YouTube and any other platforms within its control and to take all reasonable steps to prevent further uploads.
From the brief, start of page 11:
"Garcia may assert a copyright interest only in the portion of “Innocence of Muslims” that represents her individual creativity"
The brief doesn't explicitly say that Youssef may upload a different cut but the quote you provided doesn't directly contradict it either since the copies that it's referring to contain Garcia's copyrighted material. A new cut would be a new copyrighted work.
"Garcia may assert a copyright interest only in the portion of “Innocence of Muslims” that represents her individual creativity"
The brief doesn't explicitly say that Youssef may upload a different cut but the quote you provided doesn't directly contradict it either since the copies that it's referring to contain Garcia's copyrighted material. A new cut would be a new copyrighted work.
Yes, but this isn't a decision on the copyright claim. It is an injunction, ordering all copies of the film removed from youtube.
She may eventually prevail and have only her portion of the video removed, with the rest able to be distributed intact. Until that day, though, that in no way justifies the government restraining speech before her claim is even evaluated, especially given the particulars of the case. Prior restraint is almost universally a very bad thing, and something that needs to be fought tooth and claw.
She may eventually prevail and have only her portion of the video removed, with the rest able to be distributed intact. Until that day, though, that in no way justifies the government restraining speech before her claim is even evaluated, especially given the particulars of the case. Prior restraint is almost universally a very bad thing, and something that needs to be fought tooth and claw.
Fair enough, I didn't touch on the issue of prior restraint in my post and it is potentially troubling. The justification for prior restraint is that Garcia claims that she is facing death threats as a result of this movie being online and this is causing her irreparable harm. So on top of all the other factors I mentioned before, also don't produce a work that will cause people to send death threats.
I'm not saying I agree with the court's decisions, just that if you look at the actual brief, it's not the landmark, precedent setting case the media wants it to be.
I'm not saying I agree with the court's decisions, just that if you look at the actual brief, it's not the landmark, precedent setting case the media wants it to be.
If you look at "the actual brief" you are not looking at "the court's decision" in the instant case.
> "Garcia may assert a copyright interest only in the portion of “Innocence of Muslims” that represents her individual creativity"
I don't understand that argument. I thought copyright (outside of dance) was created when that creativity was affixed to media. Doesn't the person filming it own that copyright?
I don't understand that argument. I thought copyright (outside of dance) was created when that creativity was affixed to media. Doesn't the person filming it own that copyright?
Legally it may be right but morally it just pisses me off.
What world do we live in when some religions nuts are allowed to exert undue influence by threatening the actors.
What you feel insulted by a movie? Keep it to yourself and move on.
I don't care if you're Muslim, Christian, Jewish or whatever the new religion your neighbor came up with once you start forcing your beliefs on other people by threats or whatever you find appropriate you have crossed the line.
What world do we live in when some religions nuts are allowed to exert undue influence by threatening the actors.
What you feel insulted by a movie? Keep it to yourself and move on.
I don't care if you're Muslim, Christian, Jewish or whatever the new religion your neighbor came up with once you start forcing your beliefs on other people by threats or whatever you find appropriate you have crossed the line.
I think all ginger-haired people should be sent to live on an island!
Woah there Fuxy, that's a bit nasty! You shouldn't say things like that.
--
And, of course, you didn't. It doesn't really matter whether or not you agree with the statement, if you fear that ginger-haired people will take offence, or if the more extreme ginger-haired will attack you for it - the fact is, if someone deliberately misrepresents your views by making up something that you didn't say and putting your name on it then you should be able to have a say about whether or not that thing is disseminated around the world. In the case of this film it's quite possible that being associated with it might well harm the actor's ability to work. It's quite reasonable that they should go to court to express the fact that they didn't agree to be a part of what was eventually released.
This is really quite a simple case of deception - the actors were told they were signing on for one thing, and the director made something completely different. He lied to them. He shouldn't have done.
Woah there Fuxy, that's a bit nasty! You shouldn't say things like that.
--
And, of course, you didn't. It doesn't really matter whether or not you agree with the statement, if you fear that ginger-haired people will take offence, or if the more extreme ginger-haired will attack you for it - the fact is, if someone deliberately misrepresents your views by making up something that you didn't say and putting your name on it then you should be able to have a say about whether or not that thing is disseminated around the world. In the case of this film it's quite possible that being associated with it might well harm the actor's ability to work. It's quite reasonable that they should go to court to express the fact that they didn't agree to be a part of what was eventually released.
This is really quite a simple case of deception - the actors were told they were signing on for one thing, and the director made something completely different. He lied to them. He shouldn't have done.
It is quite clear by now that none of the actors ever knew what they were signing up for.
That is quite rude on the producers part however the reality is producers are bound to fuck you over if you act for long enough.
Really not cool on his part but that's a different issue.
The person didn't exert her rights because she didn't agree with the movie she did it because she got death threats.
Motivation is important.
That is quite rude on the producers part however the reality is producers are bound to fuck you over if you act for long enough.
Really not cool on his part but that's a different issue.
The person didn't exert her rights because she didn't agree with the movie she did it because she got death threats.
Motivation is important.
The producer should have recruited for the movie he was going to make, or had everyone sign an appropriate contract.
It's not right to throw the rights of the actors out the window just because Islam got involved.
It's not right to throw the rights of the actors out the window just because Islam got involved.
> misrepresents your views by making up something that you didn't say and putting your name on it then you should be able to have a say about whether or not that thing is disseminated around the world
Really ? We're talking about actors here. Isn't this akin to claiming Christian Bale's political views have been "misrepresented" as vigilantism ? Seriously. These are actors. Nobody in their right mind assumes they espouse the views they do on screen.
I find it weird that people are conflating different religions/ideologies here and attempting to apply one to the other, and guess what ?
1) people are angry about the result
2) it doesn't work, doesn't produce consistent thinking
Let's get real here :
a) it is an essential part of islam, to hunt down and execute people who criticize islam. This should not be looked at as exceptional at all, in fact it is quite normal for religions and ideologies to do this. It is the normal case for ideologies to hunt down and punish/kill criticism. Yes, Christianity doesn't do so, and obviously America's own brand of democracy doesn't either (of course, in both cases you can still give examples where people were executed for their opinions. The point is, it is not done as a matter of course, the way it is done in islamic nations, or china)
b) The idea of separating the person from their political (and business) activities the way it is done in the modern western world, like you're doing, sounds absurd to anyone outside of said western world. In most societies, whether muslim, chinese, black african ideologies, the roman empire, ... and even what we know about others like aztec civilization there is absolutely zero difference between the person, the job, and the political activities. So yes, in all those civilizations actors routinely get punished if they follow wrong ideologies.
c) the idea that no ideology is "wrong" (or rather, that there is more than one acceptable ideology at all) is very new, and fake. Obviously what people really mean is that as long as you consider our Christianity-derived law as the primary ideology, you can call yourself whatever the fuck you want. What is considered "disgusting", "extremist", "evil" and extremely illegal however, is applying even tiny amounts of sharia, or for another example communism in cases where it would violate our normal law. This is of course the whole point of those ideologies. What people mean when they say communism is NOT voluntary sharing of capital. What people mean when they say islam is NOT partially applying muslim food laws.
Really ? We're talking about actors here. Isn't this akin to claiming Christian Bale's political views have been "misrepresented" as vigilantism ? Seriously. These are actors. Nobody in their right mind assumes they espouse the views they do on screen.
I find it weird that people are conflating different religions/ideologies here and attempting to apply one to the other, and guess what ?
1) people are angry about the result
2) it doesn't work, doesn't produce consistent thinking
Let's get real here :
a) it is an essential part of islam, to hunt down and execute people who criticize islam. This should not be looked at as exceptional at all, in fact it is quite normal for religions and ideologies to do this. It is the normal case for ideologies to hunt down and punish/kill criticism. Yes, Christianity doesn't do so, and obviously America's own brand of democracy doesn't either (of course, in both cases you can still give examples where people were executed for their opinions. The point is, it is not done as a matter of course, the way it is done in islamic nations, or china)
b) The idea of separating the person from their political (and business) activities the way it is done in the modern western world, like you're doing, sounds absurd to anyone outside of said western world. In most societies, whether muslim, chinese, black african ideologies, the roman empire, ... and even what we know about others like aztec civilization there is absolutely zero difference between the person, the job, and the political activities. So yes, in all those civilizations actors routinely get punished if they follow wrong ideologies.
c) the idea that no ideology is "wrong" (or rather, that there is more than one acceptable ideology at all) is very new, and fake. Obviously what people really mean is that as long as you consider our Christianity-derived law as the primary ideology, you can call yourself whatever the fuck you want. What is considered "disgusting", "extremist", "evil" and extremely illegal however, is applying even tiny amounts of sharia, or for another example communism in cases where it would violate our normal law. This is of course the whole point of those ideologies. What people mean when they say communism is NOT voluntary sharing of capital. What people mean when they say islam is NOT partially applying muslim food laws.
Nobody in their right mind assumes they espouse the views they do on screen.
No one assumes that the actor believes the same thing as the character, but they will, quite reasonably in my opinion, assume that the actor agreed to act in the film with the dialogue they are hearing.
Very few actors would sign on to a project where they're being filmed knowing nothing at all of the audio that is going to be added later. That's essentially what happened here. The director lied to them. It's not fair to deny them the opportunity to disassociate themselves from the film if that happens.
No one assumes that the actor believes the same thing as the character, but they will, quite reasonably in my opinion, assume that the actor agreed to act in the film with the dialogue they are hearing.
Very few actors would sign on to a project where they're being filmed knowing nothing at all of the audio that is going to be added later. That's essentially what happened here. The director lied to them. It's not fair to deny them the opportunity to disassociate themselves from the film if that happens.
I feel like I'm repeating the obvious here : these are actors. Sorry to repeat myself, but I get the distinct impression it's not getting through.
> No one assumes that the actor believes the same thing as the character, but they will, quite reasonably in my opinion, assume that the actor agreed to act in the film with the dialogue they are hearing.
Everyone assumes that.
> No one assumes that the actor believes the same thing as the character, but they will, quite reasonably in my opinion, assume that the actor agreed to act in the film with the dialogue they are hearing.
Everyone assumes that.
"a) it is an essential part of islam, to hunt down and execute people who criticize islam ... Christianity doesn't do so"
There are Five Pillars to Islam[1]. None of which explicitly call for genocide. The early history of Islam was violent. But so too was the early history of Christianity. The past was extraordinarily violent. That there are some people who profess to be advancing Islam by killing in no way makes it an essential part of Islam. In the same way, the people who profess to be advancing Christianity and choose to do so by killing too[2] hardly makes it an essential part of Christianity. Islam has Sharia law. Christianity has Leviticus. Christians are still debating how much crazy stuff from Leviticus they can foist into a modern society and I have no doubt Muslims try to do the same with Sharia.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Pillars_of_Islam [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism
There are Five Pillars to Islam[1]. None of which explicitly call for genocide. The early history of Islam was violent. But so too was the early history of Christianity. The past was extraordinarily violent. That there are some people who profess to be advancing Islam by killing in no way makes it an essential part of Islam. In the same way, the people who profess to be advancing Christianity and choose to do so by killing too[2] hardly makes it an essential part of Christianity. Islam has Sharia law. Christianity has Leviticus. Christians are still debating how much crazy stuff from Leviticus they can foist into a modern society and I have no doubt Muslims try to do the same with Sharia.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Pillars_of_Islam [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism
Your comment makes no sense at all. First : who said anything about genocide ? Plus what have "the five pillars" or any short summary to do with what the whole does or does not do. I just read the five principles of testing cars, none of them have anything to do with whether the car actually fucking drives.
Google "asma bint marwan", read the first link, then judge for yourself if islam wants to see it's critics killed. Second, check what the law actually says in theory. Thirdly check what laws are applied in muslim states, including "modern" ones like morocco or turkey.
Then making the same judgement about Christianity is simple. Read the New Testament, decide for yourself what it says about blasphemy. Second check canon law. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02595a.htm . The worst punishment in Christianity for anything is exile (with the exception of murder). Thirdly check what is actually practiced in Christian countries.
Frankly if you think these 2 are at all comparable you need your head examined. Or else you're one of those "the US is as bad as the taliban, because during a war once a soldier did X and was only decades later convicted for it" morons.
As to whether islam calls for genocide, that is equally obvious. Read quran, chapter 9 verse 11. That is a blatant call for genocide, plain and direct. Granted, it is very hard to determine who should be killing who, when, where and why, but does that really matter ? You can have long tedious discussions about who/when/where. But that it calls for muslims to commit genocide on some group is not something any sane person can deny.
Google "asma bint marwan", read the first link, then judge for yourself if islam wants to see it's critics killed. Second, check what the law actually says in theory. Thirdly check what laws are applied in muslim states, including "modern" ones like morocco or turkey.
Then making the same judgement about Christianity is simple. Read the New Testament, decide for yourself what it says about blasphemy. Second check canon law. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02595a.htm . The worst punishment in Christianity for anything is exile (with the exception of murder). Thirdly check what is actually practiced in Christian countries.
Frankly if you think these 2 are at all comparable you need your head examined. Or else you're one of those "the US is as bad as the taliban, because during a war once a soldier did X and was only decades later convicted for it" morons.
As to whether islam calls for genocide, that is equally obvious. Read quran, chapter 9 verse 11. That is a blatant call for genocide, plain and direct. Granted, it is very hard to determine who should be killing who, when, where and why, but does that really matter ? You can have long tedious discussions about who/when/where. But that it calls for muslims to commit genocide on some group is not something any sane person can deny.
[deleted]
> Youssef hired Garcia to work on "Desert Warrior", a film that was described as materially different from "Innocence of Muslims".
If you are interested in hearing more about the story of how the movie came to be, Anna Gurki (another actor in the film) wrote a letter about it: http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2012/09/a-letter-from-scared-a...
If you are interested in hearing more about the story of how the movie came to be, Anna Gurki (another actor in the film) wrote a letter about it: http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2012/09/a-letter-from-scared-a...
No need to inform us that you are not a lawyer. That was made quite clear when you gave us your take on the decision after reading the brief, never even mentioned first amendment concerns (good or bad) and failed to limit the scope of the precedent variable to the Ninth Circuit.
Why so rude? A person tries to contribute and your shoot them down, because they aren't an expert!?
Were you not hugged enough as child?
Were you not hugged enough as child?
I'd love to be educated. This seems to be primarily an IP case. What are the first amendment concerns?
I'm not a lawyer either, but from having read a few cases in the past, it seems that preliminary injunctions - like the one issued to force Google to take the film down - that prevent speech are usually considered violations of the First Amendment except in extreme cases.
Whether this applies to copyright cases is still unclear, but it seems the Supreme Court has taken that stance: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1802778
Whether this applies to copyright cases is still unclear, but it seems the Supreme Court has taken that stance: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1802778
The EFF has much better coverage: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/02/bad-facts-really-bad-l...
Note that this is an injunction ahead of the decision of whether her copyright claim is valid. This is especially bad, even if she does eventually succeed in her claim, as it reinforces claims of copyright infringement as a way to restrain speech (especially worrying here because her performance consists of 5 seconds of film).
Note that this is an injunction ahead of the decision of whether her copyright claim is valid. This is especially bad, even if she does eventually succeed in her claim, as it reinforces claims of copyright infringement as a way to restrain speech (especially worrying here because her performance consists of 5 seconds of film).
To get a preliminary injunction, you have to show (among other things) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits as well as irreparable harm. I tend to agree with 'shalmanese above, which is that it would be a peculiar situation in which this precedent would allow you to suppress without there having been some bad conduct on the part of the speaker as is the case here.
One thing to note–It's standard for everyone on a film set to sign a 'Deal Memo' which among other things expressly releases all creative rights(copyright) to any work you do on said project. While I agree with Google, there isn't a big risk to movie studios etc.
I don't understand how she had any claim to this. I'd expect that everyone working on the film signed an IP agreement releasing all moral rights.
From the brief:
"Youssef didn’t obtain a written agreement, and Garcia simply doesn’t qualify as a traditional employee on this record."
"Youssef didn’t obtain a written agreement, and Garcia simply doesn’t qualify as a traditional employee on this record."
I don't agree with that. She was in the movie. Obviously she agreed to that part. She relinquishes everything at that point written agreement or not.
[deleted]
Now that it's gone, I kind of want to see it.
I have to wonder why more people don't file takedown requests solely to exploit the Streisand Effect. (Not that I'm implying that's what's being done here, just that it would be an interesting idea.)
I have to wonder why more people don't file takedown requests solely to exploit the Streisand Effect. (Not that I'm implying that's what's being done here, just that it would be an interesting idea.)
Imagine you hate Islam and you want to portray it in an obnoxious, demeaning, and depraved manner, with all the production quality of a middle school film project. You've just envisioned Innocence of Muslims.
Yeah, I read the Wikipedia article. It sounds horrifyingly bad. And in very poor taste.
And protected by the First Amendment.
Unlike some theocratic regimes where the maker of this film would be beheaded, at least we have some remaining freedom of speech and expression.
The right of free speech is not resolved in motherhood-and-apple-pie cases but in the extreme fringes of bad taste and offensiveness (Human Centipede, Nazi propaganda, etc)
Unlike some theocratic regimes where the maker of this film would be beheaded, at least we have some remaining freedom of speech and expression.
The right of free speech is not resolved in motherhood-and-apple-pie cases but in the extreme fringes of bad taste and offensiveness (Human Centipede, Nazi propaganda, etc)
This is a contract law case.
I disagree this is a first amendment case that someone found a way to get the video taken down.
They then made this a copyright case due to a bad contract.
They then made this a copyright case due to a bad contract.
You can disagree, but you are wrong.
A first amendment case, by definition, is a case involving whether the government has a right to restrict your speech.
By contrast this case is about a person's private lawsuit to have unauthorized video of herself taken down. No government, no first amendment.
A first amendment case, by definition, is a case involving whether the government has a right to restrict your speech.
By contrast this case is about a person's private lawsuit to have unauthorized video of herself taken down. No government, no first amendment.
Sure but on the other side you have to look at the necessity of open communication and the fact that the US enjoys strong free speech protections as a reaction to pretty horrendous legal abuses (particularly by the government) in the past.
It's not just a question of theocratic regimes. Every government everywhere tends to react to insults. If you don't believe me, next time you fly insult the TSA officers as much as you can and see how they react.
The way this is usually managed is by requiring a general tone of respect in a critique. It's the way it works in every Islamic country I have been in, as well as many others.
But there are two problems with this in the context of the US: First we have a history of the government silencing whatever ideas they can (trying to argue that distributing writings of Karl Marx amounts to the same thing as raising an army to violently overthrow the government).
The other problem in a pluralistic nation is that this sort of thing has to be a two way street to work. It's fine to insist that everyone speak at least somewhat respectful of another group but that only really works if there is reciprocal respect. More often it is a power play and that's the problem.
It's not just a question of theocratic regimes. Every government everywhere tends to react to insults. If you don't believe me, next time you fly insult the TSA officers as much as you can and see how they react.
The way this is usually managed is by requiring a general tone of respect in a critique. It's the way it works in every Islamic country I have been in, as well as many others.
But there are two problems with this in the context of the US: First we have a history of the government silencing whatever ideas they can (trying to argue that distributing writings of Karl Marx amounts to the same thing as raising an army to violently overthrow the government).
The other problem in a pluralistic nation is that this sort of thing has to be a two way street to work. It's fine to insist that everyone speak at least somewhat respectful of another group but that only really works if there is reciprocal respect. More often it is a power play and that's the problem.
Looks like it's available here: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cda_1347507079
Now that it's gone, I kind of want to see it.
It's utterly terrible. Not worth your time. Not even in that "good bad movie" sense of a cult classic.
It's utterly terrible. Not worth your time. Not even in that "good bad movie" sense of a cult classic.
There are some very old themes in this story.
Maintaining strong & effective sanctions against apostasy & heresy is a central component of "organized religions," their historical rise as official state religions and their positions as power wielding institutions. The collaboration of state and church to enforce a ban on heresy has been one of the most dangerous cornerstones of many of the most totalitarianism institutions of ancient, medieval and modern history.
In my opinion, it is a very bad thing to tolerate.
Maintaining strong & effective sanctions against apostasy & heresy is a central component of "organized religions," their historical rise as official state religions and their positions as power wielding institutions. The collaboration of state and church to enforce a ban on heresy has been one of the most dangerous cornerstones of many of the most totalitarianism institutions of ancient, medieval and modern history.
In my opinion, it is a very bad thing to tolerate.
Link to the "movie trailer": http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xtk8hd_innocence-of-muslims...
It's so bad, actors change voice, presumably because post-production had to make them say things.
It's so bad, actors change voice, presumably because post-production had to make them say things.
Movie: Sad that this was made
COST Judgment: Going to cost everyone Billions. Movie industry needs to be scared. If 5 seconds with paper work that was not upfront is the deciding factor of copyright I am betting there are thousands of actors and actresses who will bring up similar claims.
Copyright is to strong already, as we all agree.
COST Judgment: Going to cost everyone Billions. Movie industry needs to be scared. If 5 seconds with paper work that was not upfront is the deciding factor of copyright I am betting there are thousands of actors and actresses who will bring up similar claims.
Copyright is to strong already, as we all agree.
[deleted]
Interesting. Does this precedent (if it stands) give the EU concept of Moral Rights legs in the US, or was it just that the producers forgot to get the actress to waive her rights to the film?
None of the above.
In the US, a judge cannot simply say "OK, we have moral rights in copyright now" -- only Congress has that power. And the court did not rule that the actress had "moral rights". Most of the time, when you create or take part in creating copyrighted work, for someone else, for pay, you do not hold the copyright to it. The person who paid you to do it gets the copyright, and this is called "work for hire".
What the court ruled was that there may be a case to be made that this would not fall under "work for hire", and if so, that there might be a copyright claim the actress can assert to her work in the film.
The main problem is that it appears to be a ludicrously-massive deviation from established precedent, and in US law courts at this level really do not get to do that, either.
In the US, a judge cannot simply say "OK, we have moral rights in copyright now" -- only Congress has that power. And the court did not rule that the actress had "moral rights". Most of the time, when you create or take part in creating copyrighted work, for someone else, for pay, you do not hold the copyright to it. The person who paid you to do it gets the copyright, and this is called "work for hire".
What the court ruled was that there may be a case to be made that this would not fall under "work for hire", and if so, that there might be a copyright claim the actress can assert to her work in the film.
The main problem is that it appears to be a ludicrously-massive deviation from established precedent, and in US law courts at this level really do not get to do that, either.
The real issue surrounding this film is about how it was used as a tool and scapegoat in the destabilization and coup of Egypt. Lot's of very suspicious activities surrounding it.
Ah, Google. Defending the first amendment, while shitting all over our privacy! Such heroes!
If you think they are doing something good in this case, I recommend not complaining in discussions about this case.
Also, Google is a big complicated thing with many different people and parts. Don't expect total consistency from anything that large and complex.
Also, Google is a big complicated thing with many different people and parts. Don't expect total consistency from anything that large and complex.
> If you think they are doing something good in this case, I recommend not complaining in discussions about this case.
I don't think they're doing anything good. If they were actually good, they wouldn't be eagerly shitting all over our privacy and constantly devising new ways to do so.
This is just a PR/Distraction-stunt.
I don't think they're doing anything good. If they were actually good, they wouldn't be eagerly shitting all over our privacy and constantly devising new ways to do so.
This is just a PR/Distraction-stunt.
They;re defending it because it makes business sense. Google wants to index everything - they don't want to be held liable for it all and have to handle thens of thousands of take down orders.
Good riddance. It's pure garbage, regardless of the legal reasons behind the takedown.
Being able to say something controversial or offensive is precisely the reason why freedom of speech is necessary. There's no need to have "freedom" to do what everyone else finds non-objectionable.
To add to your point:
"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." - H.L. Mencken
"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." - H.L. Mencken
We seem to be implying that this means we have a specific obligation to defend all scoundrels and all terrible propaganda movies, when in fact that isn't the case
In that there is an "obligation" to defend our liberties there is an obligation to defend attacks on scoundrels insofar as such attacks strike at fundamental freedoms.
Scoundrels are the easiest targets but denying them of freedoms ultimately denies everyone of those same freedoms.
Scoundrels are the easiest targets but denying them of freedoms ultimately denies everyone of those same freedoms.
There is an obligation to defend all scoundrels when their rights are threatened, though obviously not otherwise.
There's an extra dimension to this, namely the actress who doesn't want to be associated with the film.
If she didn't want to be associated with the film, she didn't have to act in it. The problem is she doesn't want death threats, which should be the real story. (Some) Muslims, yet again, issuing death threats because their view of their religion on being insulted by non-believers.
> If she didn't want to be associated with the film, she didn't have to act in it. The problem is she
What are you talking about? Youssef (the guy who made the film) tricked her (Garcia) into thinking she was acting for a completely different film and role. That should be illegal...
What are you talking about? Youssef (the guy who made the film) tricked her (Garcia) into thinking she was acting for a completely different film and role. That should be illegal...
It is illegal, and she can use sue in the civil court if she wanted. Fraud is serious, and if the allegations are true, she has a good chance to win.
However, this court case is about copyright claims and work contracts.
However, this court case is about copyright claims and work contracts.
Her claims are allegations, not truths. If I were the one getting death threats about my appearance in a controversial film, I wouldn't hesitate to lie about how much I knew about the film going into it.
As far as what actually happened, I haven't seen any alleged contract, and it seems to me if you act in a film you should expect no control over the final product unless you have a contract saying you do. The nature of the film could be changed; your lines could be dubbed.
As far as what actually happened, I haven't seen any alleged contract, and it seems to me if you act in a film you should expect no control over the final product unless you have a contract saying you do. The nature of the film could be changed; your lines could be dubbed.
>If she didn't want to be associated with the film, she didn't have to act in it.
>you should expect no control over the final product
So be sure to watch the final product before acting in a movie.
>you should expect no control over the final product
So be sure to watch the final product before acting in a movie.
If the producer didn't want this to happen he should have had her sign an appropriate contract.
The death threats are another case, and should probably be investigated so that the perpetrators can be prosecuted.
However, I'm not eager to throw actors' rights out the window just because their motives for exercising them arise from their being wronged by a third party. Copyright is copyright and in America, we take intellectual property seriously.
The death threats are another case, and should probably be investigated so that the perpetrators can be prosecuted.
However, I'm not eager to throw actors' rights out the window just because their motives for exercising them arise from their being wronged by a third party. Copyright is copyright and in America, we take intellectual property seriously.
You can see the trailer here: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xtk8hd_innocence-of-muslims...
It's "garbage" in the sense of "terrible film making". The actor's voices change occasionally, probably because it was poorly edited afterwards to make them appear to say something different from what they actually said.,
It's "garbage" in the sense of "terrible film making". The actor's voices change occasionally, probably because it was poorly edited afterwards to make them appear to say something different from what they actually said.,
I truly hope you aren't an American; having the right to offend others is a good test of whether you live in a free society or not. And twisting legal justifications to fit your perspective of what's okay is even more messed up.
So you're the authority over what's "garbage" and what's permissible on YouTube? Must be a fun job.
one man's garbage is anothers
Well I hope you get the point, once you assign the power to the government to censor someone else then you give them the right to censor you.
Sorry, that is not one step most of us want to take.
Well I hope you get the point, once you assign the power to the government to censor someone else then you give them the right to censor you.
Sorry, that is not one step most of us want to take.
The crux of the matter seems to be that Youssef, the director, did not make Garcia sign any form of written contract before filming her scenes.
A standard work for hire contract would have relinquished Garcia's copyright claims to the work and none of this mess would have happened which is exactly why every professional organization insists on contracts being signed.
Absent a contract, the court is forced to determine what the implied contract is. Now, if Youssef had hired Garcia to work on "Innocence of Muslims", the court may have determined that for a 5 second appearance, a work for hire was implied and Garcia's copyright claim does not outweigh Youssef's.
But that's not what happened, Youssef hired Garcia to work on "Desert Warrior", a film that was described as materially different from "Innocence of Muslims". Given that, it becomes tricky to determine whether the implied contract was broad and general or towards a specific piece of work. The lower court interpreted it as general, the appeal disagreed. I can see both sides of the argument but, given that no contract was signed, it seems correct to me to give the maximum latitude towards Garcia.
The court decision though, is that only the 5 seconds that Garcia appeared on film could be copyrighted by her. Youssef is still perfectly free to produce a cut in which her 5 seconds is excised or replaced and re-upload it to Youtube and Garcia would have no more claim to attempt a takedown.
So, in summary, this case only creates a precedent if:
* No work for hire contract is signed
* You materially misrepresent or misappropriate the nature of work to be performed
* The person later files a copyright claim
* The work can't easily be altered to excise the copyrighted parts.
Again, I'm not a lawyer so I may be reading and interpreting the case wrong but it seems largely reasonable.