7 ms·
Google Loses Emergency Bid To Keep “Innocence Of Muslims” Film Online
- bwilliams18 13y agoOne 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.
- SkynetSystems 13y agoI would really like to know why Google is fighting so hard to keep this video up when they regularly remove anti-Judaism, anti-Israel, and other distasteful content under "hate speech" or other offensive content guidelines. You can't act like you're protecting freedom of speech when you remove videos offensive to some groups but not others, that just reeks of bias. More importantly the sleazeball who made this movie lied to the actors involved about what kind of movie it was and abused their trust and left them fearing for their safety. There has to be a recourse that allows people like that to demand the performance be taken down since they were tricked. If someone tells you they need a clip of you saying a few lines for the local news and puts your content into a snuff film instead, you would want that video taken down too.
- beedogs 13y agoGood riddance. It's pure garbage, regardless of the legal reasons behind the takedown.
- InclinedPlane 13y agoBeing 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.
- Gigablah 13y agoThere's an extra dimension to this, namely the actress who doesn't want to be associated with the film.
- harshreality 13y agoIf 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.
- jonmrodriguez 13y ago> 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...
- harshreality 13y agoHer 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.
- kubiiii 13y ago>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.
- 13y ago
- theorique 13y agoSo you're the authority over what's "garbage" and what's permissible on YouTube? Must be a fun job.
- Shivetya 13y agoone 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.
- ewillbefull 13y agoI 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.
- magicalist 13y agoThe EFF has much better coverage: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/02/bad-facts-really-bad-law-court-orders-google-censor-controversial-video-based 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).
- rayiner 13y agoTo 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.
- morgante 13y agoI 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.
- shalmanese 13y agoFrom the brief: "Youssef didn’t obtain a written agreement, and Garcia simply doesn’t qualify as a traditional employee on this record."
- sigzero 13y agoI 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 13y ago[deleted]
- whatevsbro 13y agoAh, Google. Defending the first amendment, while shitting all over our privacy! Such heroes!
- xenophanes 13y agoIf 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.
- whatevsbro 13y ago> 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.
- k-mcgrady 13y agoThey;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.
- shalmanese 13y agoI'm not a lawyer but, reading through the brief, the decision doesn't seem so bad or consequential as it may seem. 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.
- magicalist 13y agoAs 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.
- nl 13y agoInteresting. 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?
- ubernostrum 13y agoNone 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.
- jrockway 13y agoNow 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.)
- harshreality 13y agoImagine 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.
- jrockway 13y agoYeah, I read the Wikipedia article. It sounds horrifyingly bad. And in very poor taste.
- theorique 13y agoAnd 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)
- netcan 13y agoThere 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.
- zimbatm 13y agoLink to the "movie trailer": http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xtk8hd_innocence-of-muslims-movie-muslims-don-t-want-people-to-see_shortfilms 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.
- baldfat 13y agoMovie: 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.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- arca_vorago 13y agoThe 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.