Another Actor From 'Innocence Of Muslims' Sues Google Over Copyright Claim... Via Same Lawyer As Cindy Garcia
from the building-a-business,-huh? dept
Nothing much has happened lately in the bizarre legal case of actress Cindy Lee Garcia had against Google. If you don't recall, Garcia was one of the actresses who appeared in the "short film" called The Innocence of Muslims that became the center of a big story not so long ago for being incredibly insulting to many Muslims. Garcia claimed that she was duped into appearing in the film by its creator Nakoula Basseley Nakoula (who goes under a variety of names, including Sam Bacile). But, more importantly, she claimed that she had a copyright on her appearance, and thus could issue a takedown to make it disappear. Going against pretty much all settled law on the subject, the 9th Circuit Appeals court, lead by Judge Alex Kozinski agreed with her take, upending years of basic copyright law (even the Copyright Office has said she has no copyright claim). After lots of complaints, Kozinski doubled down on his original ruling, but added a couple of "outs" for a district court to fix his ridiculous interpretation (mainly by saying "fair use.") Either way, Kozinski ordered Google to take down the video (and originally put a very questionable gag order on the company about it).Garcia's lawyer, Cris Armenta then accused Google of being in contempt of court by basically misrepresenting everything Google had done. That strategy failed, as the court rejected Armenta's attempt.
However, it appears Armenta isn't done with Google yet. She's found yet another actor from Innocence of Muslims, a guy named Gaylord Flynn, and convinced him to file yet another copyright lawsuit against Google over the film. Notably, the accusation is not about the film being on YouTube (since Google took all those down), but about the fact that doing searches on Google one can find copies of the film via other sites, including various torrent sites and also other video streaming sites like LiveLeak and DailyMotion. The fact that those other sites are not being sued kinda says a lot about what's happening here.
It appears that Armenta and/or Flynn hired one of the popular takedown request companies out there, DMCA solutions, to demand Google remove all these links from its search results. Google turned down the requests, and voila, Armenta gets to file another lawsuit against Google, based on the same ridiculous interpretation of copyright law that Garcia used, that merely appearing in the film gives one a copyright interest. I get the feeling this won't be the last such lawsuit either.
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, copyright, cris armenta, gaylord flynn, innocence of muslims, nakoula basseley nakoula, sam bacile
Companies: google
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
If it were titled
Funny how those biases work.
That and Obama would have had to pick a different scape goat for Benghazi.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If it were titled
Never go full Sean Hannity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If it were titled
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If it were titled
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: If it were titled
Humm.....must be because of some stupid movie.
or maybe the attacks took place because it WAS THE ANNIVERSARY OF 9/1/1 ATTACK!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: If it were titled
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Are we driving in circles?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When the copyright office says there is no claim that really should count for something, but instead we get bad law setting up what will be an endless parade of people suing Google because Google has the money.
Perhaps this time they will get a Judge who isn't given to flights of fancy and might defer to the Copyright Office's expert statement of the standing and put an end to this cottage industry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why we care what muzzies want?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]