Cindy Garcia Still Attacking YouTube Over Innocence Of Muslims Film

from the the-striesanding-continues dept

Cindy Garcia apparently doesn't know when to stop. Perhaps more entertainingly, her legal team apparently was lifted out of some kind of law-driven sitcom. If you'll recall, we last heard from Garcia when she decided that she owned the dramatic performance (oh lord) she provided for the controversial film "Innocence Of Muslims." Armed with this unilateral declaration which deftly ignores precedent, such as Aalmuhammed v. Lee, she then attempted to get the film taken down from YouTube, ostensibly to win some kind of cat-is-already-out-of-the-bag-move championship that I'm not aware exists. All the while, her previously mentioned legal team offered up evidence that they fail to have a basic understanding of the first amendment by saying, "the First Amendment does protect American’s [sic] rights to freedom to express, and also the right to be free from expression."
"This guy totally gets us."
Well, Garcia and her team are back for more, and now they appear to think that YouTube is responsible for identifying the copyright holder of the film in question. The story reportedly goes something like this. Garcia phones up the attorney for Nakoula Basseley Nakoula (or whatever his name is this week) about a settlement offer and said attorney tells Garcia that she needs to contact the holder of the copyright on the film, which is not Nakoula (I have no idea if this is true). Then her lawyers emailed Timothy Alger, an outside consultant for Google.

"I have just been informed by Nakoula's attorney that Nakoula...DOES NOT OWN the rights to the film and will not claim copyright ownership on the rights to the film," Armenta wrote. "We believe it is YouTube's burden to identify the correct copyright holder, in light of Garcia's allegations that she owns the rights to her dramatic performance."

I can't imagine why YouTube should have the burden of copyright ownership discovery. How would they even go about doing that? In any case, Garcia's lawyers are citing the Viacom lawsuit against YouTube to put their handling of DMCA takedown requests in the spotlight. But there's a problem with such a citation, in that Google's position during the trial went in exactly the opposite direction on the question of copyright ownership being determined.

During the appeal in the Viacom case, Google's lawyers argued forcefully for a strict knowledge standard in determining an ISP's copyright liability. Google wanted copyright holders like Viacom to bear the burden of sending takedown notices because they were in the best position to determine what is infringing and what is not. "There's no central depository of copyrights," said Google's lawyer during the appellate hearing.

What Garcia's lawyers are attempting to do is to show that YouTube has been willing in the past to be quick with their takedown trigger fingers and are not responding similarly in this case. The difference, of course, is that Garcia is claiming ownership on something in which the law is, if I want to be extremely generous to Garcia's lawyers, ambiguous. To be less generous, the caselaw I referenced earlier determined that Garcia does not have any takedown rights over her performance, which is why YouTube is refusing to take the film down. And, as a California judge did once already, another judge has refused to issue an injunction to remove the film. In fact, that judge mentioned what I've been saying since Garcia first started her arm-waiving:

But on Thursday, the judge denied her request for a temporary restraining order, citing the fact that the alleged infringement commenced almost three months ago.

Where was Garcia and her team of kinda-lawyers when this film was first released? It was out for months before the controversy began and the fatwas were issued. If this was an infringement on her performance, why was it only after the media picked this story up that such infringement was alleged by Garcia?

The only logical answer is that until the negative press began, Garcia didn't care. Which means she's using DMCA notices, not because of any legitimate copyright claim, but rather in an attempt to stifle free speech.

Filed Under: cindy garcia, copyright, free speech, innocence of muslims, youtube
Companies: google

Innocence Of Muslims Actress Now Argues That The Movie Violates Her Copyright

from the that's-a-crackerjack-legal-team-you're-working-with dept

Welcome back, viewers, to another segment in our "How To Look Like A Complete Legal Know Nothing While Also Making Sure You Keep Streisand-ing Yourself Into Oblivion" series of posts here at Techdirt (we're working hard on a new segment name; sorry). Remember when we urged YouTube to not censor the controversial hate-film, "Innocence Of Muslims"? And then do you remember how one of the film's actresses, Cindy Garcia, went bonkers in California state court, seemingly alleging everything she could think of against the film's producers in attempt to force YouTube to take the film down? Remember how everyone was surprised to hear a story involving censorship that didn't have a copyright element to it?

Well, to hell with your surprise, because Cindy Garcia is back in a federal way, and she just claimed copyright infringement (PDF) over her performance and filed DMCA notices to get the film taken down. As Marc Randazza hilariously notes, this is plainly stupid.

An actor’s performance in a film is not an independently copyrightable work. I am surprised that these two attorneys are unfamiliar with this rule of law. They might be well-served to review Aalmuhammed v. Lee, 202 F.3d 1227 (2000). You know, the case that is in pretty much every single copyright textbook published since before the Clinton administration ended. Jesus fucking christ, is it so much to ask that someone take a copyright course before filing a copyright infringement lawsuit?

And that really should be the end to the copyright claim, but certainly not to the liability Garcia may find herself under for attorney and legal fees should she have an anti-SLAPP suit filed against her. The claim here, copyright and otherwise, are obviously made in attempt to get the film, i.e. speech, taken down. No one with even a modicum of understanding of copyright law and precedent could possibly think that she owns the copyright on either the film or her performance. This is settled law. Only the director is recognized as having creative control and, thus, the original copyright on the work. The MPAA and WIPO may be touting new monopoly powers for actors to dictate how their performances are expanded upon, but that wouldn't apply here. And, lest you naively think that this is just Cindy Garcia, non-lawyer, almost-actress being all spurious and whatnot, she has an actual legal team working with her on this, and there is no evidence as of yet that this legal team is actually composed of drunk orangutans. These theoretically non-ape lawyers also have some curious notions about the laws and how this nation operates. The following is from their press release.

“We are seeking the legally appropriate mechanism and the least politically controversial one to allow Google and YouTube to do the right thing,” according to M. Cris Armenta, counsel to Ms. Garcia. “Again, this is not a First Amendment case. But, the First Amendment does protect American’s [sic] rights to freedom to express, and also the right to be free from expression.” In Ms. Garcia’s case, the words that were dubbed over her performance were not hers and she finds them personally and profoundly offensive. Ms. Garcia has publicly stated worldwide, including in live broadcasts to Middle Eastern television stations that she does not condone the message in the film and would never willingly participate in such a hateful venture.

If this does not amount to an immediate rescinding of Armenta's license to practice law, that's a major problem. This is not legally appropriate and it is politically controversial because you're looking to censor speech because your client didn't bother to understand what she was getting into. I'll note again, as I did in my last post concerning Ms. Garcia, that neither she, nor her fellow enraged actors and actresses, were equally enraged for the 4 months or so the trailer was on YouTube before the mainstream media had picked the story up and the protests had begun. Her legal team can dictate all they want that this is not a First Amendment case, but simply saying so doesn't make it so.

Though, I suppose I should not be shocked that Armenta doesn't understand that this is a First Amendment case when he apparently doesn't really know what the First Amendment is. That line up there? The one that includes him telling us how the First Amendment protects our "right to be free from expression"? In case you were wondering, that's made up. There is more reality in the Twilight series than there is in that statement.

So, while I too find the film to be offensive both in taste and in some truly awful production qualities, I hope the film's producer has a competent enough attorney to anti-SLAPP the crap out of Garcia's copyright suit. The fact of the matter is that the movie business wouldn't be able to survive if the court said individual actors owned the copyrights on their own performance.

Filed Under: cindy garcia, copyright, first amendment, free speech, innocence of muslims

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."

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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?

Filed Under: fraud, innocence of muslims, lawsuit, privacy, publicity rights, secondary liability
Companies: youtube