Now we will see if Cindy Lee Garcia’s five-second appearance is edited out and the film remains on YouTube otherwise unchallenged, or if something else is found to be the basis of new calls to take the video down altogether. For ultimately, the only reason why anyone cares about this film at all is because Obama fastened upon it to blame for the Benghazi jihad attacks, and subsequently proclaimed, “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.” This film has become a symbol for all criticism of jihad and Islamic supremacism; as such, it is unlikely that it will be quietly allowed to stand now.
“US appeals court permits YouTube to display anti-Muslim video with changes,” by John Ribeiro for PC World, March 3 (thanks to Robert):
Google has been allowed by a court to keep a controversial film trailer that mocks the Prophet Muhammad on YouTube, but the video has to be scrubbed to remove the performance of actress Cindy Lee Garcia, who claims infringement of her copyright.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld its earlier order, asking Google to take down and prevent new uploads of the trailer, but did not preclude the posting or display of any version of ‘Innocence of Muslims’ that does not include Garcia’s performance.
The court had earlier ruled that YouTube should take down the controversial video which sparked off protests in a number of countries in 2012. Garcia had argued that the video would cause her irreparable harm if there wasn’t an injunction on it, as she was subject to death threats.
Google last week asked the court to allow it to retain the trailer online until the disposition of its upcoming petition for a full-court rehearing of the earlier decision.
The company had said in its filing that it has complied with the court’s order to take down the trailer, “but in light of the intense public interest in and debate surrounding the video, the video should remain accessible while Google seeks further review.”
Google, YouTube, and the public would suffer irreparable harm to their First Amendment and other constitutional freedoms if the company was not immediately granted a stay on the order, it said in the filing.
“Protected speech on a matter of broad public interest is undoubtedly being gagged, because the panel has suppressed the entire trailer, even though Garcia only claims to hold a copyright in the five seconds where she appeared,” it said.
Google and Garcia’s counsel could not be immediately reached for comment.
The appeal is the latest in a long-standing bid by Garcia to get Google to take down the YouTube video which she said included a performance by her for another movie that wasn’t released, and was dubbed over to include offensive remarks about the Prophet.
Garcia has alleged previously that she was cast in a film titled “Desert Warrior” and that defendant Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, also known as Sam Bacile, a resident of Los Angeles county, told her it was an adventure film about ancient Egyptians. Instead, Garcia’s scene was used in an anti-Islamic film titled “Innocence of Muslims,” according to court records.
In a petition in 2012 before the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Garcia stated that she had not assigned the rights to the copyrighted work to anyone, and was asking YouTube to remove the video as its copyright holder. The plea for an injunction was rejected, leading to the appeal.
Garcia does not claim copyright interest in the trailer, but claims that her performance within the film is independently copyrightable and that she retained an interest in that copyright, the appeals court ruled in a 2-1 decision.
Google, in contrast, claimed that an acting performance like Garcia’s cannot be copyrighted and that the Copyright Act makes a distinction between a copyrightable work and its performance. The majority decision by the court can throw up situations where bit performers could under certain conditions have the authority to demand the removal of YouTube videos, it said.
“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,” Google said in the filing. “That means anyone who appears in those videos—even for five seconds—will now have independent authority to contact YouTube and demand their removal.”
Champ says
Ludicrous lessons from obama …
“The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”
Correction: The future must not belong to those who *serve* the prophet of islam!
islam is wholly evil leaving no hope for a promising future.
Charli Main says
I have often wondered how any sane, rational human being with even a modicum of intelligence, could believe that a child raping, baby penis sucking, mass murdering coward, rapist and obscene necrophiliac like Mohammed of Islam could be regarded as the example of the most perfect man that has ever lived by millions of Muslims.
I then realise, that I have answered my own question. ————–
Shane says
President Obama has certainly earned his “Dhimmi of the Year” award. It is none of his business who criticizes Islam or who praises it. It is certainly NOT his job as President “to defend Islam from slander.” I still don’t know how he got away with that ridiculous statement.
logdon says
“The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”
That a US President can contravene the most hallowed tenet of western society which is freedom of speech indicates how far down that burrow of sharia he’s descended.
That he knowingly blamed the deaths of four Americans, seemingly abandoned by his administration to their fate on this bit of corny fluff indicates how far down the burrow of shameless immorality he has sunk to.
This is Obama. Lightweight. Devoid of any honesty. A man for whom the shell game was invented.
If he’d risen to the heights of small town mayor it may have been almost teeth grittingly laughable.
That he is President of the United States is worthy of an Orwellian dystopian fantasy, yet simultaneously is a quite telling metaphor for the insane reality which has taken over the world.
Never has revolution been more needed.
duh_swami says
This woman has no copy write at all. If she has, all actors, no matter how big their roles, or in what venue, movie, stage, TV, even porn stars., have ultimate control of their work, even after they have been paid. Is there such a thing as a copy write on a sex act? Can you copy write a facial expression, body position, tone of voice…an erection?
Really? I don’t see how this idea is going to stand up (pun intended) under close examination.
John Alexander says
We desperately need a few big budget movies on Islam.
Iraq and Afghanistan have conclusively proved that invading Muslim countries will not work. So we have to fall back on the Wesy’s primary weapon: freedom of speech. Islam must mocked and rationalised out of existance.
There’s a great post that attacks the obscene delicacy shown by our media to Islam called: “The Real Story” at:
http://john-moloney.blogspot.com/2014/03/the-islamic-mo-couple-of-days-ago.html
Defcon 4 says
What will you do if islam0nazis take away your right to free speech? As they have demonstrably already done in most of Europe/Eurabia and Canada?
Panentheist says
Isn’t Ali Sina in the process of producing such a film?
Always On Watch says
Eliminating that 5 seconds should have been the ruling in the first place!
Unless something else was afoot the whole time, that is.
Frank Livingston says
What bothers me is the lack of understanding citizens have about what BOTH political parties are doing or in many instances, not doing when it comes to our enemy, the Muslim Brotherhood in America and the plan they wrote to destroy America. We are being forced towards becoming a part of their effort to form a global caliphate, an Ummah ruled by Shariah/Islamic law.
Why did Obama sign UN Resolution 16/18? Go to YouTube and watch a briefing by Stephen Coughlin: The Organization of Islamic Cooperation and its Role in Enforcing Islamic Law or link to it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkAZUvQAzkc
Our useless politicians at all levels of government refuse to learn about our enemy, the Muslim Brotherhood. The Muslim Brotherhood wrote a plan to destroy us and their plan can be purchased at Amazon for only $5.00. Order “An Explanatory Memorandum: From the Archives of the Muslim Brotherhood in America.” Go online and read the OP/ED Abigail R. Esman, Contributor, December 30, 2011, Could You Be A Criminal? US Supports UN Anti-Free Speech Measure.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/abigailesman/2011/12/30/could-you-be-a-criminal-us-supports-un-anti-free-speech-measure
Here is a question for all of us to consider: “Is Pres. Obama using the Muslim Brotherhood in America to form a global caliphate or are they using him to do so?” Next, “Does Obama want to become the next UN SecGen in order to form a global caliphate, a Ummah, so he can rule the world using Shariah/Islamic law?” If not, why did he sign UN Resolution 16/18 that places Shariah/Islamic law above our First Amendment and our right to criticize Shariah?
To understand more about UN Resolution 16/18 and how it places Shariah/Islamic law above our First amendment watch an excellent briefing on YouTube by former DOD/JCS Shariah/Islamic law expert Stephen Coughlin: The Organization of Islamic Cooperation and its Role in Enforcing Islamic Law.
tpellow says
“Google loses bid to keep anti-Islam video online during appeal”
http://www.todayszaman.com/news-340991-google-loses-bid-to-keep-anti-islam-video-online.html?
This is simply another case of the West’s political class capitulating on the principle of freedom of expression in the face of hostility from organised Islamic interests.
As ‘Jihadwatch’ has been rightly pointing out: let’s nor underestimate the global political power of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation’s campaign to make criticism of Islam illegal, internationally.
And, no coincidence –
“Controversial movie ‘Innocence of Muslims’ to be discussed at OIC meeting”
(Sept 2012).
http://www.todayszaman.com/newsDetail_getNewsById.action;jsessionid=2A673A297B2F20DECAE537BDA09E567D?newsId=292782&columnistId=0
Ayatrollah says
The Islamist have really got us by the throat. The west is making criticising of Islam a crime. There are only a few who will do it today because even if it is not illegal those who criticise Islam are made out to be hateful and bigoted. The Islamist have made any criticising of Islam a civil rights issue or the same as calling someone the “n” word.
So if I don’t want to accept dhimmitude as required under Islamic sharia I am a hater. If I point out the Quran says Muslim are not to be friends with non Muslims I am violating the civil rights of the ummah. Start practising your Islamic prayers, cover your women, muhammed is coming, the world is ruined.
Defcon 4 says
If criticism of islam is outlawed, I, for one, am not going gentle in that good night.
onisac says
Our freedom of speech is fading away quickly.
“To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to talk about”,
Voltair,…………………
onisac says
“To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize. By Voltair,”
We are becoming a victim of that, here in the United States.
John Stefan Obeda says
God the Holy Trinity have mercy on us all and give us and many others the will and the power to fight for freedom and free speech tooth and nail and help us to do our part to utterly destroy Islam the work of satan, the father of lies and murder.
gravenimage says
US appeals court permits YouTube to display Muhammad video with changes
Now we will see if Cindy Lee Garcia’s five-second appearance is edited out and the film remains on YouTube otherwise unchallenged, or if something else is found to be the basis of new calls to take the video down altogether…
………………………………
Yes—I very much doubt that the attacks against the mostly factual (albeit ineptly crafted) “Innocence of Muslims” is apt to end any time soon.
Any criticism of Islam or the “Prophet” is going to remain a permanent target to for attempted censorship—both through “lawfare” and intimidation and threats of violence.