Court Quickly Rejects Contempt Motion Against Google By Innocence Of Muslims' Actress
from the nice-try,-but-no dept
Well, that didn't take long at all. Following Cindy Lee Garcia's bizarre motion for contempt last week, claiming that Google was thumbing its nose at the 9th Circuit's bizarre order to take down all copies of the Innocence of Muslims "trailer" in which she appears for 5-seconds, Google hit back with an exasperated explanation for why nearly everything written in her motion for contempt was simply false. Apparently it was fairly convincing, because the court has wasted little time in denying the motion for contempt, providing no explanation whatsoever. The entire order reads:Appellant's emergency contempt motion... is denied.So much for that little wasteful diversion. Now we wait to see if the en banc 9th Circuit will revisit whether or not it's appropriate to issue a stay on the injunction against Google.
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: alex kozinski, cindy garcia, cindy lee garcia, contempt, innocence of muslims, takedown
Companies: google, youtube
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Please tell me this isn't an April Fool's joke
[ link to this | view in thread ]
With that being said I see Google taking this as far they need to to get this ruling reversed. The ruling in itself had seem to go beyond the realm of what one would term as justified.
I see this being struck down due to the Judge's over reach in deciding her case in the first place with so many fundamental errors in law and how it was achieved
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rights to legitimate "new versions" in ANY media
Prints and Photographs Reading Room
Copyright and Other Restrictions That Apply to Publication/Distribution of Images:
Assessing the Risk of Using a P&P Image
What About Copying One of P&P's Images from a Book or Other Published Source?
If you are planning to copy and publish an image from a copyrighted, published source (e.g., a book), you should check with the publisher, since technically it owns the rights to the version appearing in the book--though few publishers realize that or seem to wish to control such copying.
- - - - - - - - -
Now search -- library permission "print run" --
The whole concept of limiting legitimate copyright permissions based on number of print runs is problematic, because if you "own" the copyright on "one" published version, why do you need to keep on asking permission for reprints of your own work? The authorization right shifts to you now. This would make the concept of royalties obsolete. Royalty contracts written under state laws are preempted by federal copyright laws with regard to equivalent rights. The right of a copyright holder to reproduce, distribute, and authorize, are rights equivalent to rights under copyright law, and any publishing agreement is a "restrictive covenant" which is preempted by copyright law, and the agreement is unenforceable, illegal, censorship, and against public policy under common law. See New York v. NETWORK ASSOCIATES, INC. and Microstrategy v. Netsolve.
So how can the Library of Congress say what they said? On the other hand, why would a third party have to seek permissions to use each and every image from the original source in a published art book, for example.
Now search -- "print run" copyright court opinion --
or use the term "lawsuit."
Courts have upheld the 'print run' limits.
But things get sticky on the internet, print-on-demand, music, etc. These issues deserve their own research and articles - too much to filter through in a few minutes.
For example, can someone get a legitimate license to 'compile' and copyright 'one' works in ANY media, and then challenge limitations on "authorizing" third-party use under the Preemption Clause, since the "Right to Authorize" is one of the exclusive rights of a copyright holder of a compiled work, and can't be contracted away under state law, since it is equivalent to a Copy-RIGHT?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ellipses?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Ellipses?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Ellipses?
"Appellant's emergency contempt motion, see Dkt. 67, is denied."
Even spelling out 'Docket' would have been a waste of the court's time.
Ho hum, what to do with all the popcorn while waiting for the next episode...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
The point is, the actual work you put in is counted as work, not the scene that appears in the movie. If you were right, actors would be paid less because much of what gets filmed ends up being cut for editing purposes - the movie would be many hours longer if scenes didn't get cut.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: CINDY GARCIA
[ link to this | view in thread ]