Anti-Islam Movie Actor Sues Producers, YouTube To Have Film Removed
from the cat's-outta-the-bag dept
Not long after I had written my opinion that YouTube should absolutely not censor the disgusing anti-Islam movie that has inflamed oft-flammable parts of this rock we all live on together, interesting news began filtering into the bloodstream. Actors in "Innocence of Muslims" began accusing its producers of misleading them about the roles they played, dubbing dialogue over their performances, and other bizzare tactics that had supposedly been used to keep those in the film from knowing what the end product was going to look like.[Lily] Dionne was one of about 79 cast and crew who say they were "grossly misled" when they answered casting calls on Craigslist, Backstage magazine and other publications in July 2011 for a film that was described as "an historical Arabian Desert adventure."According to Dionne, the actors were then brought back after shooting to do the dubs, but the producers had them speak isolated lines and words, completely out of context. For instance, they were asked to simply say the name "Mohammed" and nothing else, with no explanation as to why. 79 cast and crew members have since released a statement claiming they were taken advantage of.
But from the beginning, Dionne said the cast and crew had questions, including why the central character in a period piece had a Western name.
"We did wonder what it was about. They kept saying George. And we were like, 'This is the Middle East 2,000 years ago. Who's George?'" she said.
Now, one actress, Cindy Lee Garcia, has gone a step further and sued the man who produced the film, as well as YouTube, to, among other things, get the film taken down.
In a 17-page complaint filed Wednesday in Los Angeles Superior Court, the lawsuit from Cindy Lee Garcia also names YouTube LLC, the video-sharing website on which the video is posted, and its parent company, Google Inc., as causing irreparable harm to Ms. Garcia for refusing to remove the content from their site.A couple of things strike me here, so I'll take them in order. First, I'm unaware of how a film's director could be sued for slander (another aspect (pdf) of Garcia's lawsuit) because of the way he/she decides to portray the actors in their films. Slander should be out the window, since Garcia and the others were playing fictional roles, and so are not portrayed to be anything at all beyond the characters they were playing. Could Kevin Bacon sue Sleepers director Barry Levinson because the result of post-production for the film made his character look just a tad too child-rapey? The privacy violation and likeness rights violation in the suit seem equally ridiculous. She consented to be in a film! It's understandable why she's upset, but if that's allowed, imagine how many actors would start suing every time a film edit is a disaster and makes them look bad.
"The lawsuit is not an attack on the First Amendment or the right of Americans to say what they think," but it demands the content be pulled off because "Ms. Garcia in no way consented to the use of her performance, image or likeness in such an offensive and file film," Garcia's attorney, M. Cris Armenta, said in a statement.
As for the "fraud" claim, that may be the strongest of a bunch of very weak claims. You could make the case that the various elements of fraud are present, but almost every one of them is a stretch.
In any case, today the judge refused to order an emergency takedown of the video—though the lawsuits will move ahead.
Even if there is a civil suit to be had here, targeting YouTube and requesting they take the film down has all the hallmarks of a head-in-the-sand approach (beyond raising questions of secondary liability). The cat is not only out of the bag at this point, it's protesting at its local US Embassy. The damage is done. I can certainly understand* the distress actors feel over the worldwide reaction to a film they probably thought would never be seen, but that doesn't mean the film has to come down. Google, thus far, agrees, and has refused to remove the video beyond censoring it in certain countries.
*One caveat: the trailer for this film was released in May. Where the hell were all these outraged actors back then? Why is it only now the film has made the news that they are releasing statements, speaking out, and filing lawsuits? Did none of these actors bother to view the movie they were in before the mainstream media picked this up?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: fraud, innocence of muslims, lawsuit, privacy, publicity rights, secondary liability
Companies: youtube
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
CDA 101
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: CDA 101
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: CDA 101
Yo :Lobo, I tried to pronounce it, but it only led to more aspirin.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: CDA 101
Don't know what you're talking about, that acronym just rolls off the tongue*.
*Assuming you've been practicing your chants to resurrect the Old Ones(and who hasn't?) anyway. If you've been crazy/sane enough to not have been doing so, I suppose it might be a tad difficult to say...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The American Way
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The American Way
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://insidemovies.ew.com/2012/09/20/innocence-of-muslims-youtube-lawsuit/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I sympathize with these actors as it looks like a very amateur production and it could be inferred from anyone who doesn't have knowledge of how the industry works that this is a bunch of like-minded people who got together one day to make this production.
Exactly what these actors need to do is get on TV and News interviews explaining how they came to be part of it and how they disagree (let's hope) with the final result - they could turn a lemon into lemonade - possibly even score some better roles from it.
I have watched it and you can see very, very obviously the parts that have been dubbed - the producer hasn't even tried to cover it up. For SOME OF the people of Arab nations to become so offended by this film* doesn't say much about their knowledge of production values.
*- I put massive emphasis on "SOME OF" because Westerners tend to lump people of Arab nations into one club. When there's a mob lynching in some remote village they tend to project the sentiment onto the entire countries populace and it's governments policy.
No-one questions "Has America's experiment with democracy failed?" when an abortion clinic is bombed - it's about time that this kind of passive racist inference ended in the West.
It's gotten to the sad and ridiculous state that Arabs in fear of being attacked by the US take to holding up placards for foreign cameras. Thank you America for making the world a less safe and more fearful place!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pork Product Testing
I believe that means they are not actors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lily Dione
Or attention whore?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
cheaper
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Additionally, the burden of the release form is on the production company. In the event that no release form is signed, the talent has full rights to sue the hell out of whomever is responsible for using their likeness without permission.
The charges against Youtube and Google are silly, of course, and I suspect are just an effort to get the trailer taken down quickly. But based on the info presented here, the actors should have some ground to stand on in suing the producers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
An honest producer? GTFO. You must be the only one LOL.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes it's underhanded to let people think incorrect things without correcting them, but is it illegal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I think it should be, intentionally misleading people is essentially fraud. and no one reads those forms anymore than they read software license agreements.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"...To use and reuse the photographs and /or recordings in whole or in part, in composite or distorted form... To use my own or a fictitious name in connection herewith if Producer or any of its designees so choose... I hereby release and discharge Producer... from any and all claims and demands... this includes, without limiting the above, any claims for libel, slander, defamation..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The fraud here may be that the actors and actresses may have been given a different script, which allowed the producer to shoot a movie without them actually knowing what the end product was about. Knowing the end product, would they have signed up for it? This actress says no, and sues.
You cannot mislead people and then expect to get away with it because you made them sign away their rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Has anyone actually seen the movie?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Has anyone actually seen the movie?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I do sympathize but she should have paid more attention to what she was getting into.
For the same reason I hesitate to say this (but will anyway):
With all the crazy rioting over cartoons, non-existent films, etc., I'm starting to think "Let's All Draw Mohammad Day" wasn't such a bad idea after all. Maybe the only way to defuse this is by acclimatization - let's have billboards at every airport and city with drawings of Mohammad.
Of course there will be outrage (there is already), but after a while the outraged will have no choice but to get used to it and calm down.
I'm sure there are lots of people outraged over the easy accessibility of pornography on the Internet, but it's so ubiquitous that they've gotten used to it.
[BTW, I'm an equal-opportunity offender; I'm happy to see billboards with drawings of Jesus, Moses, and Buddha too...even Bob Dobbs]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
the thing that people need to acclimatize to is the fact that your neighbor is more like you than unlike you. And the masses need to have that idea reenforced, not denigrated.
or we can go your route and cater our society to extremists, which i'm sure will be fine too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Is that being an insensitive douche bag?
Is defying the extremists the same as "catering" to them? I think not.
I have friends who are religious (none to the extent of extremist violence, so far as I can tell), and I would not be so rude as to mock their religions to their face. But in private with like-minded people, yes, I'll mock.
But more important, there are people who ARE rude enough to mock in people's faces - like the guy who made the movie trailer. There is NOTHING we can do to prevent people like that from continuing to poke at that sensitive spot - it's going to happen whether the rest of us are polite or not.
So, given that, what can we do to reduce the violent reaction to that? If you have a better idea than mine, please suggest it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I know someone who was fooled into a movie/documentary (you probably heard of the movie) where what they said was totally and intentionally taken out of context and translated incorrectly and that person should be able to sue and win (I think they settled in the case I'm describing).
Perhaps little to no indication of how the movie will be used was reasonably disclosed and, instead, something quite different was expressed. I do have sympathy for these actors and if they were mislead they should win.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe this is her attempt at trying to clear her name as an unwilling participant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More...
http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2012/09/a-letter-from-scared-actress.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: More...
Seems the answer lies in a letter from another actress in the film that OC linked to:
Basically the intent of the film was obscured by the producer and the process. They wouldn't have known to search for the YouTube release as they weren't even informed of it. The letter actually does a very good job of explaining how such a thing could have come about without the actors involved realizing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
so what if it was released in may, im sure all the actors were not informed of the release, or at least the release of the trailer..
btw; any of these people members of the actors guild or a union, did they claim their earnings on their tax return ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
People, this is just a distraction. Regardless, the censor story notwithstanding,...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]