[Winder]

Isn't this the anti-Muslim propaganda video produced by some crazy US Zionist?
No wonder she wants a take-down. It makes her a target.

I don't think you can be a Zionist if you're not Jewish. The film was produced by an Egyptian born Coptic. He is anti-Muslim because of the oppression that the Coptics in Egypt have endured under the Muslim government. I don't think it has anything to do with Israel.

[stevebrot]

Now the rest of the story. Remember the uprising in Egypt, and the subsequently the mob storming the US Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, that was blamed on a video. Well, this is the video the actress was in for 5 seconds.

The form in which you related the story does not include the substance of the woman's case. She claims bad faith and fraud on the part of the makers of the film and that her image was misappropriated without her permission. I happen to agree with her, if indeed things were as she relates them. A similar case might be made if you contract with a model for a shoot and then Photoshop her head onto the body of somebody performing an obscene act and publish the image in a form that causes potential harm to the model.


Steve

[rawr]

The film was produced by an Egyptian born Coptic.

Aha. Yes, thanks for the clarification. I remember now. I think he also became the focus of some police interest at the time the whole story hit the news..

I don't think you can be a Zionist if you're not Jewish.

There are actually lots of Christian Zionists, bizarre as it sounds, particularly in the US. Something to do with the necessity of preserving Israel for the Rapture to take effect, or other kookiness.

A quick Google:
Christian Zionism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Christian Zionism: The Heresy that Undermines Middle East Peace

[Winder]

There are actually lots of Christian Zionists, bizarre as it sounds, particularly in the US. Something to do with the necessity of preserving Israel for the Rapture to take effect, or other kookiness.

A quick Google:
Christian Zionism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Christian Zionism: The Heresy that Undermines Middle East Peace

In articles I usually see Christians (or other faiths) that support Zionism (the creation of a Jewish homeland) referred to as Pro-Zionist Christians, not as Zionists themselves. I might be wrong, but I think Christian Zionism is simple the support of Zionism by Christians, and doesn't mean that these Christians are Zionists. Might simply be splitting hairs.

[interested_observer]

The form in which you related the story does not include the substance of the woman's case. She claims bad faith and fraud on the part of the makers of the film and that her image was misappropriated without her permission. I happen to agree with her, if indeed things were as she relates them. A similar case might be made if you contract with a model for a shoot and then Photoshop her head onto the body of somebody performing an obscene act and publish the image in a form that causes potential harm to the model.

Steve

I agree as far as you go - however you are missing the larger concern. The Court is making new law here. Link #2 for making new law. Link #3 for more. The bottom line in my opinion was that this should have been settled using contract law (that should have been easy - as you indicated a matter of bad faith and fraud), judgement for the woman. However the 3 Judge Court Panel and the woman's lawyers used copyright claims that creates a potential dent in the First Amendment. Copyright law does not take in to consideration the no expectation of privacy, or being in a public setting.

Through a novel use of the copyright law, the Court's Panel would not consider any of the normal and standard First Amendment implications. By granting a copyright to the woman for her part of the video, it essentially gave her control over the entire video. In Google's appeal, it appears that it was never determined if the woman signed a release, or what the release might have contained, although she was paid $500. Given that the release did not enter into the Court Panel's copyright decision, you can start to see where an enterprising attorney could and would leverage out into non-commercial photography. That is in part the argument that Google's attorneys have taken in their motion to the full Appeals Court. As this motion that was decided by the Court's Panel, the copyright infringement overcomes and takes the usual and standard First Amendment arguments off the table. The Judges indicated that the First Amendment could not be used.

Essentially, this could possibly open the door to -

• Photographer takes an image of a street scene.
• A person in the image objects, claims a copyright to the image.
• This could have a negative effect on all of the existing law in this area.

It is now at the full US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and if it is upheld, then it becomes case law in Alaska, Arizona, California, Oregon, Washington, Nevada, Idaho, Montana and Hawaii - unless it is overturned by the US Supreme Court. Using copyrights to chip away at the First Amendment is a very novel approach in this sense. This approach has not been used before. If it can be done in a commercial setting, then it can occur - be extended in to a private setting.

Also, as I understand it, if another US Circuit Court of Appeals hears a similar case and rules in the same way, then it becomes case law across all of the 50 states, unless or until the US Supreme Court reverses it.

The opinion was rendered 2 days ago. Google has filed an emergency motion to the full 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, primarily because of the First Amendment, free speech and implications of the novel use of the copyright law.

[MRRiley]

It is doubtful that this ruling will stand, especially when the lawyers for the MSM weigh in. Everyone from MGM down to local mom & pop production companies as well as casual photographers have a huge stake here. Copyright generally belongs to the creator of the image or audiovisual work, not to any performers or models used, especially when they are PAID as performers.

The 9th Circuit shows a distinct misunderstanding of Copyright and seems to have misapplied the law. If the producer of The Innocence of Muslims failed to get a model/performer release, the remedy is not to grant Ms. Garcia a copyright interest, it would be to either rule that the producer pay her an additional fee to secure her release or if she refused that, to pull her appearance from the film. This would have the effect of enabling Ms. Garcia to force Youtube to pull any copy of the film that contained footage of her, not because of copyright but because of the lack of a valid/legal/enforceable release.

The issue of the producer changing her words and dubbing in offensive speech is not a copyright issue, it is a "bad light" issue which once again is related to a release. Even when a release is signed it generally (unless the model or performer is a total idiot) contains an exception that makes the release void if the image is used to "paint the performer in a bad light." This is a completely civil matter at that point between the model/performer and the producer.

[nomadkng]

i agree it's a bad approach to getting the film removed. it's not a copyright issue, it's a contract law issue.

however, in regard to street photography, there is still a requirement that individuals be compensated if their likeness is used for your profit.

we are mixing and matching so many different legal issues in this thread with examples, that it's bound to be confusing.

for example, police officers actions in public are NOT subject to privacy laws because they are acting in official capacity on behalf of the public. as long as you are on public property and the police actions are in full view, in public, and you are not interfering with the police action or committing a crime yourself, then you can take all the pictures you want. HOWEVER, should you try to SELL those images in a NON-EDITORIAL market to make a profit, the individual officers and perhaps in the police department itself can sue for compensation.

there has to be a distinct expression of editorial or non editorial use when bringing up examples, because there are very different laws. it's why paparazzi can get away with what they do, they are claiming "editorial" use priviledges.

if you are a street photographer attempting to fill a gallery wall with images of people, i would strongly suggest you have model releases.

this topic has been debated for years on hundreds of these photo sites, and it always erupts into mass dissention.

in terms of this OP, i think the copyright claim will fail, because it's not a true copyright claim. once she was compensation, unless the contract she signed gave her some share of ownership, she has no true claim. breech of contract, maybe, fraud, maybe, but not copyright. however, i thin it was the fastest way her lawyers could think of to get you tube and google to pull it down because of the murkiness of the laws.

also, keep in mind the difference between public and private property. pictures of people inside a bar are not considered public, since its private property. so in the example of you getting drunk and doing something stupid, if it's in the street, they can probably get away with posting it on facebook. if it's in the bar, you have every legal right o require they delete the images of you. (now that brings up the question, what if they refuse and still post them? well unless you have a team of attorneys on retainer, good luck. though you could possibly ask facebook to remove the image if you have all your legal precedents in a row) it's also why there are separate statutes for drunk and disorderly behavior - one is for public intoxication, the other is for actions on private property that endanger others or other's property.

knowing what constitutes editorial and non editorial usage, and what constitutes private and public property dictates the "expectation of privacy"

---

Last edited by nomadkng; 03-14-2014 at 02:40 PM.

[normhead]

OK, take one of my picture off the website and post it somewhere with a caption favouring jihadist or racists or worse, Conservativesm or Republicanism, damn right I'll sue your BSing ass. I'm constantly amazed at the legal losers who defend deception in the name of legality. If the law doesn't protect the public from deception, change the law. Those who uphold the letter of the law, not the spirit, deserve to be dragged before the courts and punished. Youtube and Facebook, need a good hard Supreme Court slap in the face. Plus damages, plus court costs, plus a couple billion in punitive damages.

There is one message the courts need to send to these people... Youtube, Facebook etc. if you have a dispute, you must settle it in way that respects the rights and freedoms of both parties. If someone is deliberately mislead in any phase of production, that's fraud. Making someone go all the way to the Supreme Court over such a simple issue should be met with to the full force of the law. It would have been easy for Facebook and Youtube to remove the video. They are acting like they are the courts and have the final decision in such things. They are corporations and they are the last folks we want making legal judgements on our behalf.

[Winder]

The 9th Circuit shows a distinct misunderstanding of Copyright and seems to have misapplied the law. If the producer of The Innocence of Muslims failed to get a model/performer release, the remedy is not to grant Ms. Garcia a copyright interest, it would be to either rule that the producer pay her an additional fee to secure her release or if she refused that, to pull her appearance from the film. This would have the effect of enabling Ms. Garcia to force Youtube to pull any copy of the film that contained footage of her, not because of copyright but because of the lack of a valid/legal/enforceable release.

That is what the ruling has done. The video can still be uploaded to Youtube, but the few seconds in which Garcia appears have to be removed. The producer may still be in jail and there is no monetary compensation to be had since he has no money and the film was a free film. The Copyright of those few seconds is the only recourse the court had. If the producer had made any money off of the film or actually had any money, I'm sure the court and the lawyers would have gone after it.

I wonder who is paying Garcia's legal fees? Someone is doing it for free or a 3rd party is paying. It would be interesting to see where the money is coming from.

This was a "free" film so commercial use laws probably don't apply.