Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google Ordered To Remove Anti-Islamic Film From YouTube

Soulskill posted about 8 months ago | from the for-reasons-you-might-not-expect dept.

Google 321

cold fjord writes "The Verge reports, 'Google and YouTube must scrub all copies of Innocence of Muslims, a low-budget anti-Islam film that drew international protest in 2012, at the behest of an actress who says she received death threats after being duped into a role. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has granted a temporary takedown order on behalf of Cindy Lee Garcia, who filed a copyright claim against Google in an attempt to purge the video from the web. While actors usually give up the right to assert copyright protection when they agree to appear in a film, Garcia says that not only was she never an employee in any meaningful sense, the finished film bore virtually no relation to the one she agreed to appear in. In a majority opinion, Judge Alex Kozinski said she was likely in the right.' — Techdirt has extensive commentary on the ruling that's worth reading. It seems likely there will be an appeal, with the distinct possibility that Google and the MPAA will be on the same side."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

In before... (5, Insightful)

o_ferguson (836655) | about 8 months ago | (#46352089)

...Streisand Effect.

Re:In before... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46352121)

I'd completely forgotten about this mess until I was reminded of it. Oh well, still can't be fucked actually watching it.

Re:In before... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46352123)

Really? You must be new to the internet...

Re:In before... (3, Insightful)

bazmail (764941) | about 8 months ago | (#46352193)

You're missing the point. The fact that you can get a copy of the movie using some technical workaround is meaningless.

The important point is that the law says you are not allowed to see it on YouTube. Its a right that you had yesterday that you do not have today. Part of the massive, slow and irreversible erosion of our rights.

Re:In before... (1)

o_ferguson (836655) | about 8 months ago | (#46352295)

Yeah, thankfully Google can still point me in the correct direction: https://www.google.com/search?... [google.com]

Re:In before... (3, Insightful)

Great Big Bird (1751616) | about 8 months ago | (#46352881)

I think you are misusing the word 'right', what you should be using is permission or privilege.

Re:In before... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46353303)

Okay, then YouTube had the right to host the video, but now the law says otherwise.

Re:In before... (3, Insightful)

Sarten-X (1102295) | about 8 months ago | (#46353115)

I didn't realize that laws now singled out YouTube. I also didn't realize that my rights are somehow more important than anybody else's. In fact, usually it's the opposite - I'm not usually allowed to exercise my rights if doing so would infringe on others' rights.

There are three relevant laws in this case. First is the long precedent of case law saying that a contract must be made in good faith to be enforceable. Second is the long-standing interpretation of copyright law saying that people own copyright on their own appearance. Finally, there's the DMCA's takedown provisions.

Typically, when making a movie or taking pictures of a person, you need the actors' or models' permission*. This is a pretty standard part of the release contracts, which are indeed covered under contract law. However, in this case it seems the producers didn't make the release contract in good faith. That means the contract is thrown out, so the actress still owns copyright on her likeness as used in the movie, so she has legal standing to issue a DMCA takedown request.

This is not an erosion of our rights. This is enforcing the rights we already have. Cindy Lee Garcia's right to control her identity is being upheld.

* Especially for photos, model appearance is usually pretty weakly protected, actually. If the picture's subject is even a little famous, there's an easy argument to be made for fair use. Similarly, movie extras don't really get legal grounds to claim the whole movie, but responsible producers will have them sign releases anyway. Main characters, on the other hand, can easily claim that their appearance is significant to the final work, defeating any fair-use defense.

Re:In before... (4, Interesting)

cpt kangarooski (3773) | about 8 months ago | (#46353423)

Second is the long-standing interpretation of copyright law saying that people own copyright on their own appearance.

Got some cases you can cite for that?

Typically, when making a movie or taking pictures of a person, you need the actors' or models' permission*.

And publicity and privacy rights, which are what you get releases for, are not copyrights. They are not even vaguely related.

Re:In before... (1, Troll)

chispito (1870390) | about 8 months ago | (#46353237)

The important point is that the law says you are not allowed to see it on YouTube. Its a right that you had yesterday that you do not have today. Part of the massive, slow and irreversible erosion of our rights.

There's no right to view a video on the internet.

Re:In before... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46353371)

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Re:In before... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46353399)

Haha, you have the "right" to eat garbage and someone tried to stop you, awwwww. Dumbass haters needta hate.

Re:In before... (4, Interesting)

The Rizz (1319) | about 8 months ago | (#46352293)

There's a difference in this case; the Striesand Effect refers to the fact that trying to take something off the internet not only doesn't work, but gives you lots and lots of negative publicity for trying to do so (and highlighting the original issue which would otherwise be obscure and largely unknown), causing more damage than the original problem.

This doesn't apply in this case because:
1) The Innocence of Muslims is already known to pretty much everyone on the internet due to the events surrounding it in 2012.
2) The publicity can only help Ms. Garcia in this case, as making her disapproval known will likely help stop the death threats.

Actually it won't help. (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46352347)

> The publicity can only help Ms. Garcia in this case, as making her disapproval known will likely help stop the death threats.

Actually if there was a fatwa put out with her name on it, then the threats won't stop unless it was rescinded.

In any case, all it does is prove to extremists that death threats are an effective means towards censorship.

Re:In before... (5, Interesting)

ackthpt (218170) | about 8 months ago | (#46352373)

People who make death threats aren't rational people. Expecting them to suddenly behave rationally is without merit. They'll just move on making death threats to the next person in line they have some perceived (real or imagined) gripe against.

Re:In before... (5, Interesting)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about 8 months ago | (#46352725)

People who make death threats aren't rational people.

If the death threats achieve the desired end, then why aren't they rational?

Re:In before... (2, Insightful)

o_ferguson (836655) | about 8 months ago | (#46352385)

Well, she may get fewer death threats from Muslims and more death threads from internet freedom nutters...

Re:In before... (1)

The Rizz (1319) | about 8 months ago | (#46352993)

Well, she may get fewer death threats from Muslims and more death threads from internet freedom nutters...

Only if she actually wins in the end, and even then they'll likely be less terrorizing and more pathetic.

Really, I think it's likely that she expected to lose this fight, and it's the publicity surrounding it she was after - even a temporary injunction done in her name is likely to give her some relief from the death threats. And who knows? Maybe her actions could lead to the fatwa being lifted against the actors, and only targeting the producers/director/etc. who actually did this on purpose.

Re:In before... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46353097)

freedom of speech anywhere?

Re:In before... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46353201)

Bar-bura, Bar-bura, kirai no hito.
Bar-bura, Bar-bura, anata no hi!

Dangerous precedent (2, Insightful)

bazmail (764941) | about 8 months ago | (#46352117)

Doesn't this mean that all videos critical of religion can potentially be subject to similar orders?

The "church of scientology" will be all over this one.

The constitutional protections, and by extension US citizens, take in in the ass yet again.

Re:Dangerous precedent (5, Insightful)

Ralph Wiggam (22354) | about 8 months ago | (#46352199)

The complainant is not a random critic who disagrees with the content of the film. And under normal circumstances, an actor would not have the standing to file a takedown notice either. But this woman claims that she was duped into appearing in the film under unusual circumstances and the judge seemed to agree.

May as well be (1, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 8 months ago | (#46352251)

The complainant is not a random critic who disagrees with the content of the film.

It's close enough as to make no difference. Do you really think that EVERY actress/actor who finds the released movie different than the one she/he worked on can get the movie pulled when they have ZERO ownership of it? Absurd.

The movie was never really a problem anyway - all of the protests against it were shams, as are death threats against the actress (obviously). And yet we are willing to let any person who appeared in a movie have a say over release and distribution... it will never work.

Re:May as well be (5, Insightful)

Ralph Wiggam (22354) | about 8 months ago | (#46352349)

It's close enough as to make no difference.

Actually it makes a big difference. To file a court case, you have to have "standing". A random person who's pissed off does not qualify. You have to be directly involved in the situation.

I'm also surprised that an actor in a film was able to get any claim of ownership. An actor is expected to know that a movie can change due to rewrites, or editing, or any of the reasons that films normally change between the beginning and the end of the process. But if you can show that the producer was intentionally deceptive- that he planned the whole time to make an anti-Islam hit piece but told the actors something else, then that's a different story.

Re:May as well be (1)

mozumder (178398) | about 8 months ago | (#46353001)

I'm also surprised that an actor in a film was able to get any claim of ownership. An actor is expected to know that a movie can change due to rewrites, or editing, or any of the reasons that films normally change between the beginning and the end of the process. But if you can show that the producer was intentionally deceptive- that he planned the whole time to make an anti-Islam hit piece but told the actors something else, then that's a different story.

This is precedent setting here as well. Usually the creator of the medium owns the copyright, not a contributor. It would change everything if new rule stands.

One point though is that the producer didn't get a release from the actress at all, so any modern release should cover any effects of changes to the film. This might case might be a unique one because of that.

Re:May as well be (2)

Sarten-X (1102295) | about 8 months ago | (#46353451)

But if you can show that the producer was intentionally deceptive- that he planned the whole time to make an anti-Islam hit piece but told the actors something else, then that's a different story.

It's a different story, then. Pretty much every aspect of the movie's production [wikipedia.org] and release is shady.

Re:May as well be (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46353117)

The complainant is not a random critic who disagrees with the content of the film.

It's close enough as to make no difference. Do you really think that EVERY actress/actor who finds the released movie different than the one she/he worked on can get the movie pulled when they have ZERO ownership of it? Absurd.

The movie was never really a problem anyway - all of the protests against it were shams, as are death threats against the actress (obviously). And yet we are willing to let any person who appeared in a movie have a say over release and distribution... it will never work.

ORLY? [wikipedia.org]

Van Gogh was murdered by Mohammed Bouyeri as he was cycling to work on 2 November 2004 at about 9 o'clock in the morning, in front of the Amsterdam East borough office (stadsdeelkantoor), on the corner of the Linnaeusstraat and Tweede Oosterparkstraat (522132.22N 45534.74E).[3] The killer shot van Gogh eight times with an HS2000 handgun. Initially from his bicycle, Bouyeri fired several bullets at Van Gogh, who was hit, as were two bystanders. Wounded, Van Gogh ran to the other side of the road and fell to the ground on the cycle lane. According to eyewitnesses, Van Gogh's last words were: "Mercy, mercy! We can talk about it, can't we?"[4] Bouyeri then walked up to Van Gogh, who was still lying down, and calmly shot him several more times at close range.[5][6] Bouyeri then cut Van Gogh’s throat, and tried to decapitate him with a large knife, after which he stabbed the knife deep into Van Gogh's chest, reaching his spinal cord. He then attached a note to the body with a smaller knife. Van Gogh died on the spot.[7] The two knives were left implanted. The note was addressed, and contained a death threat to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who was subsequently forced to go into hiding, threatened Western countries and Jews and [8][9] also referred to the ideologies of the Egyptian organization Takfir wal-Hijra.

Re:Dangerous precedent (2)

Aaden42 (198257) | about 8 months ago | (#46352353)

Susan Sarandon supposedly hated Rocky Horror and regretted ever appearing in it. Shall we tear down all the copies of that?

If nothing else, judges in cases like this should take to heart that once something is published on the Internet, it’s forever. I know no judge wants to hear, “You don’t have the power to do that, your Honor,” but the fact of the matter is there’s no way to ever remove something like this from public view.

See also: Star Wars Christmas Special...

Re:Dangerous precedent (3, Insightful)

Ralph Wiggam (22354) | about 8 months ago | (#46352417)

Susan Sarandon supposedly hated Rocky Horror and regretted ever appearing in it. Shall we tear down all the copies of that?

Can she convince a judge that her contract to appear in the movie was invalid?

Re:Dangerous precedent (0, Offtopic)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 8 months ago | (#46352731)

If her breasts still look anything like they did in the movie Atlantic City, she could probably convince the judge of anything.

I was a teenager when that movie came out and that scene where she rubs a lemon all over her body is indelibly burned into my brain. I remember thinking, "Hey! I think there's a mouse in my pants!" and then running out of the theater to try to beat it to death.

Re:Dangerous precedent (2)

noh8rz10 (2716597) | about 8 months ago | (#46352755)

Susan Sarandon supposedly hated Rocky Horror and regretted ever appearing in it. Shall we tear down all the copies of that?

yes please. why would people sing and dance about such topics?

Re:Dangerous precedent (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about 8 months ago | (#46353129)

I just checked the bay and its up there. of course. and its not coming down.

youtube is irrelevant. anyone who wants to see this can just grab it from tpb.

the judge, while he might have meant well, is a moran. and he's encouraging more take-downs and more people making death threats. he's rewarding the 'rule by fear' and I don't like that one bit.

I realize I'm not the one who could be getting the threats; but maybe putting her into protection or giving her a new ID is the better way. taking down the video just appeases the primitives and that is NOT going to help anyone in the long run.

Re:Dangerous precedent (1)

Holi (250190) | about 8 months ago | (#46353463)

Are you reading impaired. Did you fail to understand that the producers actually lied to the cast about the movie they were creating. That is the reason the contract was invalidated not because the movie was bad.

Re:Dangerous precedent (2, Informative)

gIobaljustin (3526197) | about 8 months ago | (#46352781)

Censorship is intolerable, and this decision is unjustifiable. If you care about freedom of speech, you agree with me 100%.

Re:Dangerous precedent (3, Insightful)

Holi (250190) | about 8 months ago | (#46353487)

Absolutely not. This has fuck all to do with freedom of speech, this has to do with being honest in your contracts and not trying to dupe people into making hate pieces.

Your statement demanding everyone agree with you shows how little you actual care about free speech.

re: Dangerous precedent (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46352215)

Please RTFA. This isn't taken down because it's critical of religion. It's taken down because it falsely represents the views of the actors who were tricked into performing their roles. You're still free to condemn any religion, but you can't misrepresent the opinions of others without their consent.

Re: Dangerous precedent (4, Insightful)

bazmail (764941) | about 8 months ago | (#46352389)

It's taken down because it falsely represents the views of the actors

What the hell does that even mean? They are actors, pretending to be someone else, i.e. pretending to have different views, thoughts, feelings etc. Its their job to "falsely represent themselves".

Re: Dangerous precedent (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46352801)

In order to use a model's image or performance for non-fair use purposes, you must have a VALID release to do so. People have publicity rights. Ie. you cannot use my face to sell acne creame without a release.

She is suing to regain her publicity rights and to prevent her performance from being used. The judge agrees the producer acted in bad faith and restored her right. The producer no longer has a valid legal right to continue to use her performance therefore Google also no longer has a right to show it.

It's unlikely we will see a flood of such lawsuits based on the argument against respectable content producers.

Re:Dangerous precedent (0, Flamebait)

icebike (68054) | about 8 months ago | (#46352219)

Yup, pretty much. All you need is one disgruntled person who was even tangentially involved to come forward and complain, (about anything).

This is why the Ninth needs to be dismantled.
This would get laughed out of court anywhere else if even so much as a dollar changed hands.

Re:Dangerous precedent (1)

Holi (250190) | about 8 months ago | (#46353493)

So lying in a contract is ok? and What the hell does the 9th amendment have to do with this.

You really want the 9th amendment revoked when it is the only thing that protects the majority of your rights?

Re:Dangerous precedent (2, Insightful)

Trashcan Romeo (2675341) | about 8 months ago | (#46352221)

I've been watching a lot of old "Law & Order" episodes recently and every time a character says something pious about "constitutional rights" I can only snort with derision at what a period piece the show is now. In our time - what might be conveniently described as "The Cheney Era" - the only rights you have are those that pose no inconvenience to the government or the business interests that rent it. If it suits the government to have you killed, you will be killed - and with no messy court paperwork to bother about. If it suits Comcast to monopolize broadband access, the FCC will roll out the red carpet before them.

Re:Dangerous precedent (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46353151)

In our time - what might be conveniently described as "The Obama Era" - the only rights you have are those that pose no inconvenience to the government ...

FTFY

Ridiculous assertion (2)

Karl Cocknozzle (514413) | about 8 months ago | (#46352265)

The constitutional protections, and by extension US citizens, take in in the ass yet again.

I am not aware of a constitutional right to commit fraud. The project this person agreed to appear in bore zero resemblance to this one, and while it is true--she definitely has no right to control the work product she agreed to appear in, she has every right to sue over this other work that essentially puts her in the crosshairs of terrorists--totally without permission.

Re:Ridiculous assertion (2, Insightful)

Aaden42 (198257) | about 8 months ago | (#46352403)

If there’s any suit available to this actress, it’s against the producer/director/etc. of the film for misrepresentation. There’s no conceivable way this should be a copyright case. There’s no way that anyone who was paid for appearing in it by the eventual rights holder (producer/etc.) should retain any right to issue take down demands contrary to the will of the actual owner of the copyright.

Short of a contract that stated she retained any rights (doubtful), then I can’t see how this was anything other than work for hire with associated assignment of copyright.

Re:Ridiculous assertion (3, Insightful)

Sarten-X (1102295) | about 8 months ago | (#46353265)

If the hiring was fraudulent, being based on false pretenses, then the copyright assignment is consequently void.

Re:Ridiculous assertion (3, Informative)

Holi (250190) | about 8 months ago | (#46353513)

You obviously didn't bother to even read the summary. She did win suit against the producer, which is why she can claim copyright on her image in this movie.

Re:Ridiculous assertion (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46353209)

I am not aware of a constitutional right to commit fraud.

I'm not aware of anything in the constitution that says the government can censor material and infringe upon free speech rights because they think fraud took place, which is what matters.

The constitution is a *whitelist* of things the government can do, not a blacklist of things it can't. But even if that weren't true, we have the first amendment, which lists no exceptions to free speech. Damn fool.

Re:Ridiculous assertion (1)

Holi (250190) | about 8 months ago | (#46353525)

I am not sure you can claim fraud is free speech, in fact I know for a fact you cannot. Or do you think libel and slander are protected?

Re:Dangerous precedent (3, Interesting)

jklovanc (1603149) | about 8 months ago | (#46352329)

This is a very specific instance where the actor claims that she was hired for a film about one thing and the film turned out to be about something else. Would you have a problem with being hired for a film about the advantages of having a father figure but when the film comes out it is actually about the benefits of pedophilia? It is not about religion; It is about misrepresentations on the filming contract.

Re:Dangerous precedent (1)

ATMAvatar (648864) | about 8 months ago | (#46353145)

I would want to see a copy of the script before I performed one take of the movie. I just assumed any actor or actress would do the same.

The only scenario for which I could feel sympathy for Ms. Garcia would be if the script was radically changed during the course of filming to the point where it was completely different. Even then, my sympathy is limited because I would personally insist in having a clause in the contract to terminate early when big script changes occur.

radical change to the script (4, Informative)

FranklinWebber (1307427) | about 8 months ago | (#46353377)

From the first-linked article:

'...she later found her footage had been edited for the new film and overdubbed with one of the most controversial lines: "Is your Mohammed a child molester?"'

It sounds like she is in precisely the scenario you describe.

Re:Dangerous precedent (1)

jrumney (197329) | about 8 months ago | (#46352405)

Doesn't this mean that all videos critical of religion can potentially be subject to similar orders?

No. It does mean that all videos where the cast has been duped into starring in a film of a completely different nature than they thought they were making can potentially be subject to similar orders though.

Re:Dangerous precedent (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about 8 months ago | (#46353167)

A performer owns copyright of their performance, unless otherwise agreed. Most actors sign away these rights. She may have signed away those rights, but is arguing a breach of contract that would nullify that assignement of her copyright on her own work. If she is correct in that breach of contract assertion, then she should still hold copyright over her performance, and her scenes would have to be cut to end up with a work that the "owner" would be able to distribute.

The principle issue here is not copyright, but contract law.

Re:Dangerous precedent (1)

cpt kangarooski (3773) | about 8 months ago | (#46353541)

A performer owns copyright of their performance, unless otherwise agreed.

No, not quite.

A mere performance, by itself, is not copyrightable. In order to be copyrightable, a performance must be fixed in a tangible medium. This always raises the question of whether the person doing the fixation is the actual author, or at least a joint author, with equal rights in the work. Basically it hinges on creativity. If the actor is in charge of their own costuming, lighting, cinematography, and direction, and everyone else is just following orders like a robot, with no creative input, and we set aside issues of works made for hire, then yes, the actor would be the sole author of the film. But if the actor isn't in charge of everything which, along with the performance, is being filmed, then they may be only one of many authors, and if it's the actor who is following orders like a robot, the actor may not have contributed any sort of authorship at all.

Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony is what you'll want to take a look at.

Re:Dangerous precedent (1)

Holi (250190) | about 8 months ago | (#46353429)

So you decided to disregard everything the summary and the article said and make some bs comment. Brilliant

So much for satirical documentaries (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46352129)

The Yes Men do this all the time.

Copyright? (4, Insightful)

wiredlogic (135348) | about 8 months ago | (#46352131)

How can someone who performed in a work-for-hire claim copyright? They own nothing other than the cash they were paid for their services.

Rather than Streisand herself she should just change her name. It sucks to have to do so but that's her only recourse.

Re:Copyright? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46352257)

It opens the door for every actor to sue the producers for copyright violation. The judge is basically saying that the director has no right to edit the film in a way the actors disapprove of, because the actors are being "creative".

Re:Copyright? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46352451)

I don't see how a "regular" actor could sue, they must all have contracts that they work-for-hire or signed release forms etc. giving them no rights

lots of "reality" shows, girl-gone-wild etc. would be in big trouble if they could be sued every time some one thought they were put in a bad light

Re:Copyright? (5, Informative)

Ralph Wiggam (22354) | about 8 months ago | (#46352271)

How can someone who performed in a work-for-hire claim copyright?

She's claiming that the work for hire contract was deceptive and is not valid. The judge apparently agrees.

When this story first broke, some people tracked down the film's creator. He seemed like a real scumbag who would certainly be capable of shit like that. He is an Egyptian Coptic Christian, and his people have certainly been fucked over by the Muslim majority in that country. But that movie seems like a terrible idea on many levels.

Re:Copyright? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46353021)

This ruling could fuck up documentaries and gonzo journalism as well. I couldn't have believed me writing this but lets hope MPAA is victorious with its appeal.

Re:Copyright? (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about 8 months ago | (#46353401)

How can someone who performed in a work-for-hire claim copyright?

When the contract for the work for hire is invalid (not in good faith or fraudulent), as is claimed here.

Or if that offends you, she claims she was defrauded, and the judgment she's seeking for the remedy for the fraud is partial-ownership of the copyright.

Slander - not freedom of speech. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46352141)

I generally respect American-style freedom of speech when it comes to stupid and distasteful things. (I am not a US citizen). However, this isn't only about freedom of speech - it's about defamation and slanders. If it falsely makes it looks like the actors supported this film in a way they did not, they have every right to sue and try to get this taken down.

Unfortunately, it won't really help their reputations though. They might want to consider posting their own followups for clarifications on their positions.

I actually agree with this. I don't care if Fred Phelps screams messages of bigotry and hate, but I sure as hell would draw the line if he misrepresented MY opinions within his messages.

Re:Slander - not freedom of speech. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46352177)

what about the shamelessly retarded islamists?

if any religion is deserving of defamation, it is Islam.

Re:Slander - not freedom of speech. (3, Informative)

aardvarkjoe (156801) | about 8 months ago | (#46352323)

So make the statement yourself (without hiding behind the anonymity of Slashdot.)

You don't get to put words in someone else's mouth without their permission, though.

Re:Slander - not freedom of speech. (2)

icebike (68054) | about 8 months ago | (#46352273)

It doesn't "falsely makes it looks like the actors supported this film", and the WHOLE POINT of freedom of speech is that you don't get to PICK AND CHOOSE.

So Angelina Jolie supports Russian moles? (-1, Troll)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 8 months ago | (#46352315)

Salt Movie Spoilers Below

However, this isn't only about freedom of speech - it's about defamation and slanders. If it falsely makes it looks like the actors supported this film in a way they did not

OMG, I saw this movie called Salt, and it CLEARLY shows that Angelina Jolie is a Russian Mole - I had no idea she supported embedded terrorists.

Oh wait, she was an ACTRESS PORTRAYING A ROLE?

And even an IDIOT understands that actresses do not at all necessarily endorse what the characters they play are doing, or in fact even the main message of the movie because after an actress is doing a JOB?

Oh, my bad! I would have to be the dumbest person on the planet to claim that a movie in any way shed a bad light on an actress in it beyond the horror that may be their acting skills.

Where was the court injunction removing Gigli from the universe? If that didn't go this can certainly stay. Or else we start whacking a LOT of movies that any person on the planet finds objectionable.

Where's Will Wheaton when you need him? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46352441)

And even an IDIOT understands that actresses do not at all necessarily endorse what the characters they play are doing, or in fact even the main message of the movie because after an actress is doing a JOB?

People do it ALL that time: example - Wesley Crusher and the hate Will Wheaton had to endure from Trekkies with no life.

It happens all the time. Actors who play disgusting characters have a hard time constantly. Ralph Fiennes' career stagnated a bit for his rather brilliant portrayal of that SS officer in Schindler's List.

Now ramp it up with a bunch of religious fanatics....

Re:Slander - not freedom of speech. (2, Informative)

wagnerrp (1305589) | about 8 months ago | (#46352339)

If it falsely makes it looks like the actors supported this film in a way they did not, they have every right to sue and try to get this taken down.

While this may indeed be the case, this has nothing to do with copyright law. Actors working for hire have no copyright claims unless explicitly documented in their contract. Having this video taken down using copyright claims is a miscarriage of justice.

NOT Slander - just a contract matter and ACTING (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46353137)

First, are you SERIOUSLY asserting that any time we see a movie we should believe that the actors and actresses (the actual people paid to do the performances) believe in all the stuff their CHARACTER say?!?!? I can believe that the insane 9th circuit court thinks that, but it might come as a shock to the actors who performed in the Harry Potter films, and people like Kenneth Branagh who have played NAZIs (and in his case an actual planner of the Holocaust) in films might have a thing or two to say about that...

Second, If an actor/actress thinks his/her performance was abused (and which one hasn't complained about the editing of his/her scenes and dialog?) the this is a matter of contract law; it's NOT an excuse to invent a new copyright claim (that participants in a production have an unwritten, non-negotiable, but enforceable copyright on their own performances)

And In Other News... (1, Informative)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 8 months ago | (#46352157)

And in other news, King Canute has officially commanded the tide to stop coming in. We'll keep you abreast of any late breaking details from this fascinating story.

You don't tell the Google what to do. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46352161)

You just... don't. Google!

Hmm /.? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46352167)

Hmm /.?

Garcia had to file this legal complaint (4, Interesting)

Applehu Akbar (2968043) | about 8 months ago | (#46352175)

Because if she succeeds is suppressing the film, she gets to keep her head.

But meanwhile, because even the more marginally sane decisions of the "Ninth Circus" are routinely blown away by the SCOTUS, this one will certainly not survive. Garcia therefore has a window of a few months to arrange for a new identity.

Re:Garcia had to file this legal complaint (2, Insightful)

wagnerrp (1305589) | about 8 months ago | (#46352379)

Whether you agree with the result of the ruling or not, this should not have been handled using copyright claims. An actor for hire with no ongoing royalties stipulated in their contract has no copyright claims on the content.

Re:Garcia had to file this legal complaint (2, Informative)

blackraven14250 (902843) | about 8 months ago | (#46352605)

It's not based in copyright claims, though. It's based on an invalid contract.

Re:Garcia had to file this legal complaint (1)

DaHat (247651) | about 8 months ago | (#46352469)

Because if she succeeds is suppressing the film, she gets to keep her head.

That's a rather silly idea... as it assumes that no one who would desire to kill her would have any other means of finding the movie... or for that matter hasn't seen it already.

If anything, this suit has made her more of a target as all of the sudden more personal information is available.

Re:Garcia had to file this legal complaint (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46353067)

But meanwhile, because even the more marginally sane decisions of the "Ninth Circus" are routinely blown away by the SCOTUS

That's just urban legend, talk radio "big lies" and confirmation bias. The Ninth Circuit is overruled no more often than any other circuit court.

But please keep spreading lies and using name calling to bolster your arguments. It makes it easier for the rest of us to detect the people who can't think for themselves.

Re:Garcia had to file this legal complaint (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about 8 months ago | (#46353471)

Why wouldn't this survive? She claims she was defrauded in her contract, and her demand for reparation of the fraud is partial ownership of the copyright.

This case seems to be all about the contractual dispute, copyright is a minor issue. But in slashdot world, the copyright becomes the major issue, and the contractual dispute/fraud is ignored.

Why... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46352181)

Oh why are you bringing this back.. LET IT DIE.
The more you talk about it, the more you're spreading it. Great job on re-igniting the flames.

Re:Why... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46352235)

Oh why are you bringing this back.. LET IT DIE. The more you talk about it, the more you're spreading it. Great job on re-igniting the flames.

That's part of cold fjord's job description.

Re:Why... (1)

amiga3D (567632) | about 8 months ago | (#46352457)

Who gives a shit. I mean really, it's a shitty little movie about some crazy people. I don't get all the fuss.

Interesting... (4, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 8 months ago | (#46352211)

While it's pretty obvious why everyone involved wants this particular issue to go away, it would be...striking... if that sort of legal reasoning didn't end up causing even more of a disturbance among American corporations and their assorted hired guns than the movie did among the hicks 'n zealots subset.

Basically, something that looked a whole lot like a work for hire is suddenly not a work for hire anymore because the hireling didn't really approve of the changes made elsewhere in the production process. It's hard to imagine a theory much more dramatic than that, for any company doing business in copyrighted work slapped together by teams of employees.

In fairness, I don't envy the actress who now enjoys the attention of some of the real dregs of abrahamic monotheism, even by the tepid standards of the genre; but the idea that that makes the movie no longer a work for hire (rather than, say, a reckless endangerment suit) has no obvious 'bright line' boundaries that would prevent it from applying to much less dramatic situations. They say that doing 'rights clearance' in film sucks already, imagine if every cast member, and maybe even the memorable extras, gets veto power based on whether they approve of the post-production special effects or not... That'd be fun to try to insure.

Please let's just repeal the 1st amendment. (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 8 months ago | (#46352309)

The attitude against free speech is actually beyond majority status. New restrictions will pass easily.

Unusual case (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46352331)

This case is not really about an Anti-Muslim film but the intricacies of copyright law and motion picture industry practices. So no matter the outcome, there is little significance.

In other news... (-1, Flamebait)

Mashiki (184564) | about 8 months ago | (#46352359)

Obama and major democrats are still stating that the "Innocence of Muslims" was the cause of the attack on Benghazi. Despite evidence to the contrary. [wikipedia.org]

Re:In other news... (1)

Mashiki (184564) | about 8 months ago | (#46353193)

Ah liberals and democrats, when reality doesn't fit your way, throw a hissy fit. Facts, nasty things right.

uhh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46353197)

you do realize this is all orchestrated by bankers and aristocracy that have ruled the world the last 2000 years or so?

obama and major democrats all but paid off piss ants in the whole scheme of things - albeit well paid off and good little order taking piss ants.

you should really read into how the CIA (the guys above obama) manipulate the muslim world to create this perpetual hate of the west.

This... doesn't make any sense. (1)

Spazmania (174582) | about 8 months ago | (#46352459)

The actors don't have a copyright unless rights are granted by the film maker. The script writers have a copyright (unless they're W2 employees) and the cameramen have a copyright (unless they're W2 employees) but the actors have nothing. Copyright vests in whoever puts the work into a fixed form or in their W2 employer if they are acting as an employee. There are a dozen or so exceptions but "actor" isn't one of them.

Re: This... doesn't make any sense. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46352939)

But actors have publicity rights. If their employment contract is declared invalid, they maintain the right to their publicity. That means the producer is distributing the film without legal standing in violation of copyright law.

Laugh (2, Informative)

koan (80826) | about 8 months ago | (#46352515)

The religion of peace, and if you make fun of it we will kill you.

Re:Laugh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46353305)

The religion of peace, and if you make fun of it we will kill you.

They figure it will be peaceful once they kill everyone that doesn't agree with them.

Extended Editions / Director's Cut / Posthumous Ed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46352549)

Actor: Please, Judge, this modification weren't what I signed for
Judge: True, burn all copies of: The Crow, Stargate Director's, etc.

Sanity? What for?
Stupidity? Welcome home.

George Lucas will love this (1)

msobkow (48369) | about 8 months ago | (#46352855)

George Lucas will love this. He'll finally have what it takes to get rid of all those embarassing copies of a Star Wars Christmas.

And every actor or actress that has appeared in a steaming shitpile can claim they were "duped" and demand that those films be pulled, too.

If she got paid, she got paid. Her rights ended at getting paid.

Wow, that piece of crap (1)

Megane (129182) | about 8 months ago | (#46352915)

I watched it way back when it was being used as the excuse for Benghazi. At first I thought I was being trolled and that it was some joke video people were pointing to instead.

It's like a bad college freshman film class assignment. It was so bad I had to stop halfway through to wash my brain out. And you can tell the "anti-Muslim" language was overdubbed because the overdub audio is so clean.

If there's one reason it should be completely removed from existence, it's because of how horribly bad the thing is.

Islamic violence wins again (1)

cowwoc2001 (976892) | about 8 months ago | (#46353007)

It seems that every time extremists resort to threats and violence, they have gotten the censorship they were seeking.

Many newspapers are now self-censoring for fear of violence. Is this really where we are headed?

It's the whacko 9th circuit, so (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46353053)

it will probably be reversed (these left-wing nitwits are so nutty they are the most-reversed of all the federal circuit courts)

That being said, however, there is a very important point here that ought to frighten Hollywood (and some computer game makers, too) ... this appears to assert an entirely new and VIRAL copyright / "intellectual property" concept. It used to be that a complete film carried a copyright held by the company that released the film... but THIS ruling appears to establish the idea that each performer in a film has his/her own (automatic and implied) copyright over his/her performance that is not tied to any contract and may be invoked at any random time after the film is released, leading to the film being banned. WOW! That will become a VERY toxic precedent if allowed to stand.

Personally, I think the impact on Hollywood of such a precedent might be amusing... I've little sympathy for the jerks in that industry and their insincere pretenses about "free speech", "oppression", etc. Decade by decade we've all seen them fawn over cause X, or cause Y, always claiming to be for the "little guy" oppressed by "the man" as they pretend to be for all forms of free speech and "speaking truth to power" ... but after the Benghazi raid, Hillary Clinton (then Secretary of State) promised the families of the dead that the filmmaker would be found and punished (this was before anybody knew his identity and knew he had a probation violation on record that could be used as a pretense) and indeed the maker of this film was found and jailed for over a year (on the pretense that he violated his probation by logging onto the internet and uploading the video). When the federal courts ordered California to release non-violent prisoners to alleviate prison overcrowding, this guy was kept in jail (re-located by the feds to a jail in Texas) while convicted rapists and murderers were released. Did ANYBODY in Hollywood speak out about this (the first filmmaker in the US to ever be jailed for making a film) case??? Nope. Saint Obama and Saint Hillary would be harmed by any criticism and so there couldbe none. Hollywood people are phonies when they posture about freedom, or standing up to power.

Call Islam violent and be killed. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46353057)

Way to prove the point.

How many Christians beheaded someone over Piss Christ?

Yeah, zero.

Torrents on TPB (1)

J'raxis (248192) | about 8 months ago | (#46353503)

Time for a good ol' streisand effect. Lookee here:---

Pirate Bay #1 [thepiratebay.se]
Pirate Bay #2 (720p) [thepiratebay.se]
Pirate Bay #3 (640x360) [thepiratebay.se]

Personally I always thought this movie was just racist/Islamophobic dreck, but now with the government finally finding a convenient excuse to censor it, I'm downloading all three of these copies and will be seeding them indefinitely once downloaded.

youtube takedowns (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46353537)

What do I have to do to get them to take down all the anti-Christian, anti-Hindu, anti-Buddhist, anti-anti-free speech videos?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?