“The panel has adopted a novel interpretation of copyright law that will invite uncertainty and chaos for the entertainment industry, documentary filmmakers, amateur content creators, and for online hosting services like YouTube, allowing bit players in movies, videos, and other media to control how and when creative works are publicly displayed.” Indeed. And the panel did this, wittingly or unwittingly, in service of a Sharia agenda to forbid criticism of Islam. Cindy Lee Garcia’s real quarrel was with the filmmakers. She should have settled it with them instead of having the film taken down. Now she has handed a great victory to the Leftist and Islamic supremacist foes of the freedom of speech.
“Google Warns ‘Muslims’ Ruling Will Create Hollywood Chaos,” by Eriq Gardner for the Hollywood Reporter, February 28:
Google is really freaking out about Wednesday’s ruling determining that Innocence of Muslims actress Cindy Lee Garcia could assert a copyright interest in her performance in the film and that as a result, the controversial anti-Islamic film had to be wiped from YouTube.
The web giant has filed a new emergency motion to stay the disposition pending a rehearing before a larger panel at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. In doing so, Google has some bold First Amendment warnings about the implications for allowing an actress with five seconds of screen time to enjoin its distribution of Innocence of Muslims:
“The panel has adopted a novel interpretation of copyright law that will invite uncertainty and chaos for the entertainment industry, documentary filmmakers, amateur content creators, and for online hosting services like YouTube, allowing bit players in movies, videos, and other media to control how and when creative works are publicly displayed.”
How so? Google continues:
“Under the majority’s analysis — absent contractual shifting — movie extras could register copyrights in their reaction shots, facial expressions, and mimed chatter. Background singers on a record could register their ‘oohs’ and ‘ahhs.’ The list goes on.”
Could the ruling be the end of YouTube? Google says:
“Most of the millions of amateur filmmakers who upload their videos and other creative works to YouTube presumably do not have written agreements with those who appear in their videos. That means anyone who appears in those videos — even for five seconds — will now have independent authority to contact YouTube and demand their removal.”
And what about Hollywood? More from Google:
“To be sure, many professional filmmakers try to obtain releases from participants. But how long have they done so? And how long do they keep them? And do they obtain them from everyone with even the smallest role? The majority’s approach opens the door to an extra in even Gone With the Wind contacting Netflix and demanding that it purge every copy of the film from its inventory.”
Google says the copyright system isn’t meant to deal with such fallout and points to something we wrote on the day the ruling was released.
“Nor would the implied-license doctrine solve the problem. YouTube, after all, could not meaningfully adjudicate a takedown dispute if a bit player asserted that he had been misled about what his role in the film would be. Implied contract claims are intensely factual and subject to defenses — such as the fraud-in-the-inducement defense the majority identified — that third-parties like YouTube are ill-equipped to adjudicate. Its only choice would be to roll the dice with an infringement suit or remove the video. As one commentator has already recognized, the majority’s rule will ensure that online service providers like Google and YouTube ‘will have tough days ahead of them in determining how to respond to copyright takedown notices from individuals who, before today, might not have been presumed to hold any interest in copyrighted material.'”
Worried in Wichita says
According to Google’s brief:
the Court last Wednesday issued a SEALED order directing that
Defendant-Appellee Google Inc. take down “all copies” of the video “ ‘Innocence
of Muslims’ from YouTube.com and from any other platforms under Google’s
control”
Why was a court order telling Google to obliterate the video “SEALED”? To avoid timely publicity? To maximize the effectiveness of the gagging order?
This whole secretive and dishonest proceeding stinks to high heaven.
Brian C. Hoff says
Bank faud is than serious criminal matter even worst than arm bank robbery. U-tube change arenot good an they are makeing up how bad that ruleing is. It only apply in this one case and only in this one case. It than person post the entire Star War moive on U-tube that the own of that copyright have no legal right to ask U-tube to remove that video.
St. George says
Thank you for this valuable contribution, Muhammad.
Could you post an English version in the next few weeks so more kuffars can partake of your prophet(PBUH)-inspired wisdom?
Say hi to Abdullah and Ali.
WVinMN says
So Brian, as I posted above, provide examples of other minor parole violations garnering attention from the FBI, the State Dept ( Hell, the SOS herself!) and the WH. We’re all waiting.
Alaskaninfidel says
It may well be unintentional but…you are HILARIOUS!
Aardvark says
And what if someone cuts out the bits showing Cindy Lee Garcia (or fuzzes out her face, as YouTube did with the allah amulet in the Katy Perry video) and reposts the film?
Jay Boo says
Excellent point
It is amazing how lightning fast the amulet was removed to appease Islam and yet this solution that would not serve Islam is apparently not even considered.
Jay Boo says
As was mentioned in an earlier JW article heading –
I paraphrase
The Obama / Clinton Benghazi team cleverly choose this poorly made ‘Innocence of Muslims’ film which achieves no real threat to exposing the evils of Islamic ideology whereas there are many much better made film clips even on You Tube that not only mock Islam but reveal its inherent evil.
The ‘Innocence of Muslims’ served as dripping wet red meat for the leftists and Islamists to parade as the so called proof that (Islam) is not the real problem in order to rationalize this administration’s shameless abandonment of Benghazi while pandering to the Left and Muslims.
Mike C says
Great Point Jay
Salah says
We need to start a huge campaign spreading this specific video on the net.
You can still download it here:
http://crossmuslims.blogspot.ca/2012/09/innocence-of-muslims.html
Wellington says
No such novelty of interpretation of copyright law would have occurred had this been a film dealing with any other religion but Islam. And therein lies the crux of the matter.
In short, the caving-in to Islam continues, this time courtesy of judicial representatives of the polity which has been the greatest guarantor and protector of liberty throughout the world over the past century, liberty being something that the Islamic faith knows NOTHING about, indeed it is an inveterate enemy of such. Anyone not seeing the problem here is either a total doofus or one actively complicit with the Islamic faith, the only faith among major faiths which I despise and will forever despise.
Oh yes, our very fluid times continue. At stake, among other precious things is, gee have I mentioned it already, liberty. Sorry, but Obama, the 9th Circuit and Holder could not be reached for further comment.
Worried in Wichita says
No such novelty of interpretation of copyright law would have occurred had this been a film dealing with any other religion but Islam. And therein lies the crux of the matter.
Exactly.
Alaskaninfidel says
It occurs to me that a carefully crafted video could stifle…destroy certain kinds of speech.
Deirdre Turnbull says
Ffs why foot in other shoe I’m thinking …..
Mark Dunn says
Sorry I don’t speak ebonics what dose Ffs mean?
Deirdre Turnbull says
For fuck sake I only learned threw fb xx
Jay Boo says
Off topic
found this is search
James OKeefe punks NPR with Muslim Brotherhood stunt
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/james-o-keefe-punks-npr-with-muslim-brotherhood-stunt
Andrea McGann Little says
Clear violation of free speech. And the reasonable man standard the courts use would not see fit to get a release from every single person on a film.
gravenimage says
Google warns that court order removing Muhammad video will create Hollywood chaos
………………………….
What? Caving in to Muslim censorship might lead to unintended restrictions on freedom of speech?
I’m shocked, shocked! Oh, wait…no, I’m not…
Champ says
…and wow who does their laundry? …like neon white!
Truthiocity says
What this does is usher in an age of extortion. Any member of a crew or cast can now threaten to get a video banned unless the filmaker pays a ransom.
Documentary filmakers and news producers will be hit worst because if a subject of a confrontational interview claims it was edited with a bias to show them in a bad light, then the footage can be removed from the public eye. That makes it an assault on the freedom of the press.
It’s tantamount to erasing the 1st amendment. Dunno if the law is unconstitutional but the effect is the same.
Could a ruling be argued to be unconstitutional based upon effect?
Colin Jansen says
Just upload to servers off shore from the US and the Judge can go sing.
Peter says
Anyone knows the name or email of the judge enforcing sharia , please let me know
Joeb says
Heh heh. I like the photo that accompanies the piece. It looks like something out of Monty Python’s ‘Life of Brian’.
Mike Andrew says
Fuck you
Galvin Fox says
no court has the authority to override the basic human right to freedom of expression FUCK ISLAM!!!