« | »

9th Circ Makes Google Remove Anti-Muslim Video

From an irony proof Associated Press:

YouTube ordered to take down anti-Muslim film

By PAUL ELIAS | February 27, 2014

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — A U.S. appeals court ordered YouTube on Wednesday to take down an anti-Muslim film that sparked violent riots in parts of the Middle East and death threats to the actors.

The decision by a divided three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco reinstated a lawsuit filed against YouTube by an actress who appeared briefly in the 2012 video that led to rioting and deaths because of its negative portrayal of the Prophet Muhammad.

‘There they go again.’

YouTube resisted calls by President Barack Obama and other world leaders to take down the video, arguing that to do so amounted to unwarranted government censorship and would violate the Google-owned company’s free speech protections.

But Obama is a Constitutional scholar. So Google and the rest of us must be mistaken. There are no free speech protections in the Constitution. In fact, it seems like the Obama has done away with every single aspect of the First Amendment (freedom of speech, religion and the press), via his executive actions.

Besides, the company argued that the filmmakers and not the actors of "Innocence of Muslims" owned the copyright and only they could remove it from YouTube.

Which, of course, is the Law Of The Land, thanks to the The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Unless Obama has changed that, too.

And typically, that’s the case with the vast majority of clips posted on YouTube — and Hollywood in general — that don’t violate decency laws and policies. But the 9th Circuit said Wednesday that this case was far from typical and that the actress, Cindy Lee Garcia, retained a copyright claim that YouTube must respect. That’s because she believed she was acting in a different production than the one that ultimately appeared online.

"Had Ms. Garcia known the true nature of the propaganda film the producers were planning, she would never had agreed to appear in the movie," said Cris Armenta, Garcia’s attorney.

This is preposterous. Ms. Garcia surely gave the producers the right to use her image however they wanted. That is in every film release/contract.

Google argues that the actress had no claim to the film because filmmaker Mark Basseley Youssef [AKA Nakoula Nakoula] wrote the dialogue, managed the entire production and dubbed over Garcia’s dialogue during postproduction editing.

Something which happens a lot more than you would think. Ask the actor,  David Prowse, who played Luke Skywalker’s father in the first Star Wars movie. And whose voice was replaced by James Earl Jones’, without Prowse’s knowledge or permission.

Writing for the court, Chief Judge Alex Kozinski said the ruling was not a blanket order giving copyright protection to every actor, but that in this case, Garcia’s performance was worthy of copyright protection.

Judge N. Randy Smith dissented, arguing that Garcia’s five-second appearance gave her no ownership claims. "Her brief appearance in the film, even if a valuable contribution to the film, does not make her an author," Smith wrote. "Indeed, it is difficult to understand how she can be considered an ‘inventive or master mind’ of her performance under these facts." …

For Google, the ruling represents a nettlesome issue if allowed to stand. The company fears that bit players and extras appearing in popular clips will now be emboldened to send takedown notices to YouTube unless settlements can be reached with the filmmakers.

Don’t worry. Only Muslims and the defenders of Islam will have this power.

Google Inc., which has removed the clip, said it will appeal the decision to a special 11-judge panel of the appeals court. The next move after that would be to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case. "We strongly disagree with this ruling and will fight it," said Google spokeswoman Abbi Tatton.

We’ll see.

This article was posted by Steve Gilbert on Thursday, February 27th, 2014. Comments are currently closed.

4 Responses to “9th Circ Makes Google Remove Anti-Muslim Video”

  1. If this was only a Pro-Gay anti-Muslim film and the witch had been paid ..

    /couldawouldashoulda

  2. BannedbytheTaliban

    I agree with the court, can’t believe I’m saying that, that your first amendment rights end when you dub over someone’s voice with script that person would find objectionable. However, all they have to do is edit out her 5 seconds of fame and re-post the film. I’m not sure why they didn’t do that in the first place and avoided the courts all together.

    Sadly the film does not “slander the Prophet of Islam;” it merely tells the truth about the pedophile of Islam.

  3. canary

    WTF!!!!!!!! All the liberal entertainment and news media shows Michelle guests on were showing the music video performance by Katy Perry where she plays an Egyptian princess and zaps the symbol of allah some guy is wearing.

    Then they showed Katy Perry in revealing skin tight Michelle Obama Move Forward outfits displaying the Obama logo moon flag and promoting his agenda.

    http://www.smh.com.au/entertai.....33go2.html

    Modernize the FCC
    “The Commission shall strive to be highly productive, adaptive, and innovative organization that maximizes the benefits to stakeholders, staff, and management from effective systems, processes, resources, and organizational culture.




« Front Page | To Top
« | »