3 ms·

Sad to see EFF arguing against the woman who was tricked into appearing in _Innocence of Muslims_. Sure, the law she is using to arguing her case might not be a

by sukilot 12y ago

Sad to see EFF arguing against the woman who was tricked into appearing in _Innocence of Muslims_. Sure, the law she is using to arguing her case might not be a good one, but it's still cruel to throw her under the bus.

themartorana 12y ago
Assuming her story is entirely true, there is still the argument that we shouldn't ever whitewash history. Innocence of Muslims now has an important role in history, from the abuse of the actors involved to the bloody protests that claim the "film" as the protagonist. Yes, it's tragic that someone is caught up in this against their will, but censoring it in the US doesn't make it any less relevant to recent history. At this point in time, not being able to watch the film is the same as censoring any other video with historical impact. I can't imagine being in the actress's position, but facts cannot be erased - only censored.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
bediger4000 12y ago
She needs to find another way to redress her greivance: she pretty clearly, by law and custom, does not hold copyright to the film. This isn't "throwing her under the bus", this is her asking for something for the wrong reasons. No need to futher pervert copyright just to cover a single odd case.
- anigbrowl 12y ago
  She didn't claim copyright in the film. Read the decision; the opinion was written by Judge Kozinski, who is one of the brightest minds on the bench. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=752615380456801846&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=752615380456801... Incidentally, Judge Smith makes cogent points in his dissent, but I'm a bit tired to go addressing them in detail now. In a nutshell, my take on it is this: Garcia has a copyright interest in her performance by default; she assigned that interest as part of her agreement with the film's producers; that agreement is pendant on a mutual understanding about the nature and general content of the film, and in the case of Innocence of Muslims the misrepresentation by the producers was so blatant as to be fraudulent, invalidating the contractual relationship the agreement was intended to establish, and voiding the assignment of Garcia's copyright interest, which must be presumed to have reverted to Garcia in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

by sukilot 12y ago

themartorana 12y ago

Assuming her story is entirely true, there is still the argument that we shouldn't ever whitewash history. Innocence of Muslims now has an important role in history, from the abuse of the actors involved to the bloody protests that claim the "film" as the protagonist. Yes, it's tragic that someone is caught up in this against their will, but censoring it in the US doesn't make it any less relevant to recent history. At this point in time, not being able to watch the film is the same as censoring any other video with historical impact. I can't imagine being in the actress's position, but facts cannot be erased - only censored.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

bediger4000 12y ago

She needs to find another way to redress her greivance: she pretty clearly, by law and custom, does not hold copyright to the film. This isn't "throwing her under the bus", this is her asking for something for the wrong reasons. No need to futher pervert copyright just to cover a single odd case.

anigbrowl 12y ago
She didn't claim copyright in the film. Read the decision; the opinion was written by Judge Kozinski, who is one of the brightest minds on the bench. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=752615380456801846&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=752615380456801... Incidentally, Judge Smith makes cogent points in his dissent, but I'm a bit tired to go addressing them in detail now. In a nutshell, my take on it is this: Garcia has a copyright interest in her performance by default; she assigned that interest as part of her agreement with the film's producers; that agreement is pendant on a mutual understanding about the nature and general content of the film, and in the case of Innocence of Muslims the misrepresentation by the producers was so blatant as to be fraudulent, invalidating the contractual relationship the agreement was intended to establish, and voiding the assignment of Garcia's copyright interest, which must be presumed to have reverted to Garcia in the absence of evidence to the contrary.