Actress claims Copyright of Video - US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circ

**interested_observer** · 02-28-2014, 03:03 PM

There has been an appeal filed with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit by Google and Yahoo. The initial order was sealed, and now it has been unsealed. In a number of respects, I considered not posting this - however, I am going to go ahead. This will go to the US Supreme Court.

Short Background.

An actress who appeared in a 13 minute video, in a single 5 second cut, has claimed copyright ownership of the movie and has won the appeal's panel approval - ordering Google and Yahoo to remove the video from YouTube. Initially Google and Yahoo won the Federal Court case, however the actress appealed to a panel of the Ninth Circuit which agreed with the actress and issued the take down order. Now Google and Yahoo are appealing to the full Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

What it appears to do is - if you take a picture or a video of someone, they can claim ownership of their image, claim a copyright on the photograph/video, and then order that the image/video be taken down. So, at least in my initial reading it seems to put street shooting at risk. Also, how about the videos of police "over reacting" - and having the police officers involved claim a copyright and have the video disappear.

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.

Here are the links.... The news story, and Google's filing with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

**smigol** · 02-28-2014, 03:09 PM

I wonder if there was a model release on file for the video?

**fretlessdavis** · 02-28-2014, 03:13 PM

Slightly unrelated, but I've been slightly concerned about model rights with regards to Facebook and Youtube and such.

Say, if I did something stupid walking down the street, somebody caught it on video, and posted it on YouTube. The person is obviously recognizable as me. They didn't ask for a model release, nor did they ask my consent. The video goes viral, google/youtube keep making millions. Same thing with Facebook-- they can commercially use any photo that is uploaded. What if they use a photo of me, taken by someone else without my permission that was uploaded?

Couldn't just about every subject of the images and videos used by google/youtube/facebook seek royalties?

Steve.Ledger · 02-28-2014, 03:14 PM

Originally posted by interested_observer

What it appears to do is - if you take a picture or a video of someone, they can claim ownership of their image, claim a copyright on the photograph/video, and then order that the image/video be taken down. So, at least in my initial reading it seems to put street shooting at risk. Also, how about the videos of police "over reacting" - and having the police officers involved claim a copyright and have the video disappear.

It's pure idiocy, pettiness and monumentally puerile.
Or in short, sickening.

Originally posted by fretlessdavis

Say, if I did something stupid walking down the street, somebody caught it on video, and posted it on YouTube.

Point is, you're in a public place. In public there is no right to privacy.

Winder · 02-28-2014, 03:31 PM - **1 Like**

There are two points here that are important:

1. Garcia is claiming that she was told she would be cast in a film called "Desert Warriors" and her lines were dubbed over with new content where her character calls Mohammed a child molester. I would assume the release that she signed gave the film maker total control to edit or this would never have gotten this far. Garcia's claim is that she was deceived by the producer.

2. Garcia is claiming that the editing of her lines in the film have generated death threats and have put her life at risk. She is asking for the removal of the film for her own safety, and not ownership of the film simply because she was in it for 5 seconds.

The film is a private production with paid actors. It has nothing to do with street photography which is simply the documentation of public life. Had this film been shot as a real documentary (no script or paid actors) in the public eye, then there would be no case.

**fretlessdavis** · 02-28-2014, 03:33 PM

Originally posted by Steve.Ledger

It's pure idiocy, pettiness and monumentally puerile.
Or in short, sickening.

Point is, you're in a public place. In public there is no right to privacy.

I know there is no right to privacy, but it's being used commercially, is it not? Youtube and Faccebook are profiting of it's distribution?

It is a hypothetical. I wouldn't sue over that. But aren't people's likeness being used commercially without their consent?

I have been printing some of my street shots, and only will display ones where someone's face isn't easily discernible, since I didn't have their permission.

vonBaloney · 02-28-2014, 03:35 PM

Originally posted by fretlessdavis

Same thing with Facebook-- they can commercially use any photo that is uploaded.

This is not really true no matter what FB's terms of service are. Someone uploading a video to Facebook doesn't magically strip you of your rights. This is one of those overblown fears...

Steve.Ledger · 02-28-2014, 03:36 PM

Quote:

Garcia is claiming that the editing of her lines in the film have generated death threats and have put her life at risk.

What sort of deluded mind would think that an actors lines in a movie, dubbed or not represents the actor's personal opinion, thoughts and intent?
Nutzoid....

**fretlessdavis** · 02-28-2014, 03:37 PM

Originally posted by vonBaloney

This is not really true no matter what FB's terms of service are. Someone uploading a video to Facebook doesn't magically strip you of your rights...

I'm just trying to clarify.

So if someone else took a photo of me (clearly identifiable as me) and uploaded it to facebook without my permission or release, and it was eventually used by Facebook in an ad campaign, what would *my* rights be, as the subject who's consent was never received from?

vonBaloney · 02-28-2014, 03:50 PM

Originally posted by fretlessdavis

I'm just trying to clarify.

So if someone else took a photo of me (clearly identifiable as me) and uploaded it to facebook without my permission or release, and it was eventually used by Facebook in an ad campaign, what would *my* rights be, as the subject who's consent was never received from?

The thing is, Facebook would never do that, just as they wouldn't send their camera crew out in the street to shoot some random people and then make a commercial out of it.

So your rights on Facebook are the same as your rights everywhere else (at least in this country) -- they are YOUR rights after all. COMMERCIAL use of someone's image with few exceptions (like if you are Barack Obama) is generally not allowed without your permission and compensation. However, EDITORIAL (i.e. "news") use is not so protected, so that video of you in a public place *could* go viral and there is probably not much you can do about that, but people can't go use it in advertising. My earlier point being is that someone uploading it to Facebook doesn't suddenly and magically change the status of something, and I keep seeing people say things that suggest just that. Facebook can say whatever they want in their terms of service, but they aren't making law...we haven't ceded legal authority over to Facebook just yet as far as I know...

**fretlessdavis** · 02-28-2014, 03:57 PM

Thanks for the reply. It just seemes that their terms and conditions was very draconian, so I wasn't sure what would happen in that situation, or if it has.

I guess falling on my ass would be considered newsworthy. I'll have to look into what has happened when actual TV commercials have used snippets of youtube videos. I'm sure thay had to secure permission from everyone in the video, and its creator.

Winder · 02-28-2014, 04:29 PM

Originally posted by Steve.Ledger

What sort of deluded mind would think that an actors lines in a movie, dubbed or not represents the actor's personal opinion, thoughts and intent?
Nutzoid....

Obviously the world is full of nutzoids. Dutch cartoonist Kurt Westergaard has been attack several times for insulting Mohammed and several other planned attacks were prevented.

rawr · 02-28-2014, 04:33 PM

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.

kentishrev · 02-28-2014, 04:57 PM

Originally posted by fretlessdavis

I know there is no right to privacy, but it's being used commercially, is it not? Youtube and Faccebook are profiting of it's distribution?

It is a hypothetical. I wouldn't sue over that. But aren't people's likeness being used commercially without their consent?

I have been printing some of my street shots, and only will display ones where someone's face isn't easily discernible, since I didn't have their permission.

This is an interesting one. As street photography is becoming more popular it seems, there are more and more images and competitions around it. The terms of magazine competitions usually require you to hand over control of the photograph to the publishers to use as they wish. Can they do that with recognisable faces?

Na Horuk · 02-28-2014, 06:08 PM - **1 Like**

I think in this case you need to take into consideration the specific context.

02-28-2014, 03:03 PM	#1
interested_observer Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Tumbleweed, Arizona Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,707	Actress claims Copyright of Video - US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circ There has been an appeal filed with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit by Google and Yahoo. The initial order was sealed, and now it has been unsealed. In a number of respects, I considered not posting this - however, I am going to go ahead. This will go to the US Supreme Court. Short Background. An actress who appeared in a 13 minute video, in a single 5 second cut, has claimed copyright ownership of the movie and has won the appeal's panel approval - ordering Google and Yahoo to remove the video from YouTube. Initially Google and Yahoo won the Federal Court case, however the actress appealed to a panel of the Ninth Circuit which agreed with the actress and issued the take down order. Now Google and Yahoo are appealing to the full Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. What it appears to do is - if you take a picture or a video of someone, they can claim ownership of their image, claim a copyright on the photograph/video, and then order that the image/video be taken down. So, at least in my initial reading it seems to put street shooting at risk. Also, how about the videos of police "over reacting" - and having the police officers involved claim a copyright and have the video disappear. 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. Here are the links.... The news story, and Google's filing with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Google Warns 'Muslims' Ruling Will Create Hollywood Chaos Garcia v. Google Emergency

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Photographer Sues Shoe Company for $250 Million for 4 Years of Copyright Infringment	interested_observer	Photographic Industry and Professionals	7	09-25-2015 04:32 AM
Black & White High Winds Over the Court of Patriarchs Zion National Park	fotogaffer	Post Your Photos!	12	06-06-2013 06:42 PM
Is the sharpness of the lens important for video?	iNicole	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	7	09-08-2012 05:49 PM
Court declares Franken the winner of Minnesota Senate race	deejjjaaaa	General Talk	33	07-04-2009 09:44 AM
The dark side of copyright law...	tobiasj	General Talk	38	11-29-2007 01:28 AM

02-28-2014, 03:09 PM	#2
smigol Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Menlo Park, CA Photos: Albums Posts: 422	I wonder if there was a model release on file for the video?

02-28-2014, 03:13 PM	#3
fretlessdavis Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2013 Location: Port Angeles, WA Photos: Gallery Posts: 505	Slightly unrelated, but I've been slightly concerned about model rights with regards to Facebook and Youtube and such. Say, if I did something stupid walking down the street, somebody caught it on video, and posted it on YouTube. The person is obviously recognizable as me. They didn't ask for a model release, nor did they ask my consent. The video goes viral, google/youtube keep making millions. Same thing with Facebook-- they can commercially use any photo that is uploaded. What if they use a photo of me, taken by someone else without my permission that was uploaded? Couldn't just about every subject of the images and videos used by google/youtube/facebook seek royalties?

02-28-2014, 03:14 PM	#4
Steve.Ledger Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Far North Qld Posts: 3,301	Originally posted by interested_observer What it appears to do is - if you take a picture or a video of someone, they can claim ownership of their image, claim a copyright on the photograph/video, and then order that the image/video be taken down. So, at least in my initial reading it seems to put street shooting at risk. Also, how about the videos of police "over reacting" - and having the police officers involved claim a copyright and have the video disappear. It's pure idiocy, pettiness and monumentally puerile. Or in short, sickening. Originally posted by fretlessdavis Say, if I did something stupid walking down the street, somebody caught it on video, and posted it on YouTube. Point is, you're in a public place. In public there is no right to privacy.

02-28-2014, 03:31 PM - 1 Like	#5
Winder Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Tennessee Posts: 6,617	There are two points here that are important: 1. Garcia is claiming that she was told she would be cast in a film called "Desert Warriors" and her lines were dubbed over with new content where her character calls Mohammed a child molester. I would assume the release that she signed gave the film maker total control to edit or this would never have gotten this far. Garcia's claim is that she was deceived by the producer. 2. Garcia is claiming that the editing of her lines in the film have generated death threats and have put her life at risk. She is asking for the removal of the film for her own safety, and not ownership of the film simply because she was in it for 5 seconds. The film is a private production with paid actors. It has nothing to do with street photography which is simply the documentation of public life. Had this film been shot as a real documentary (no script or paid actors) in the public eye, then there would be no case.

02-28-2014, 03:33 PM	#6
fretlessdavis Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2013 Location: Port Angeles, WA Photos: Gallery Posts: 505	Originally posted by Steve.Ledger It's pure idiocy, pettiness and monumentally puerile. Or in short, sickening. Point is, you're in a public place. In public there is no right to privacy. I know there is no right to privacy, but it's being used commercially, is it not? Youtube and Faccebook are profiting of it's distribution? It is a hypothetical. I wouldn't sue over that. But aren't people's likeness being used commercially without their consent? I have been printing some of my street shots, and only will display ones where someone's face isn't easily discernible, since I didn't have their permission.

02-28-2014, 03:35 PM	#7
vonBaloney Pentaxian Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: Albuquerque, NM Posts: 6,029	Originally posted by fretlessdavis Same thing with Facebook-- they can commercially use any photo that is uploaded. This is not really true no matter what FB's terms of service are. Someone uploading a video to Facebook doesn't magically strip you of your rights. This is one of those overblown fears...

02-28-2014, 03:36 PM	#8
Steve.Ledger Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Far North Qld Posts: 3,301	Quote: Garcia is claiming that the editing of her lines in the film have generated death threats and have put her life at risk. What sort of deluded mind would think that an actors lines in a movie, dubbed or not represents the actor's personal opinion, thoughts and intent? Nutzoid....

02-28-2014, 03:37 PM	#9
fretlessdavis Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2013 Location: Port Angeles, WA Photos: Gallery Posts: 505	Originally posted by vonBaloney This is not really true no matter what FB's terms of service are. Someone uploading a video to Facebook doesn't magically strip you of your rights... I'm just trying to clarify. So if someone else took a photo of me (clearly identifiable as me) and uploaded it to facebook without my permission or release, and it was eventually used by Facebook in an ad campaign, what would my rights be, as the subject who's consent was never received from?

02-28-2014, 03:50 PM	#10
vonBaloney Pentaxian Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: Albuquerque, NM Posts: 6,029	Originally posted by fretlessdavis I'm just trying to clarify. So if someone else took a photo of me (clearly identifiable as me) and uploaded it to facebook without my permission or release, and it was eventually used by Facebook in an ad campaign, what would my rights be, as the subject who's consent was never received from? The thing is, Facebook would never do that, just as they wouldn't send their camera crew out in the street to shoot some random people and then make a commercial out of it. So your rights on Facebook are the same as your rights everywhere else (at least in this country) -- they are YOUR rights after all. COMMERCIAL use of someone's image with few exceptions (like if you are Barack Obama) is generally not allowed without your permission and compensation. However, EDITORIAL (i.e. "news") use is not so protected, so that video of you in a public place could go viral and there is probably not much you can do about that, but people can't go use it in advertising. My earlier point being is that someone uploading it to Facebook doesn't suddenly and magically change the status of something, and I keep seeing people say things that suggest just that. Facebook can say whatever they want in their terms of service, but they aren't making law...we haven't ceded legal authority over to Facebook just yet as far as I know...

02-28-2014, 03:57 PM	#11
fretlessdavis Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2013 Location: Port Angeles, WA Photos: Gallery Posts: 505	Thanks for the reply. It just seemes that their terms and conditions was very draconian, so I wasn't sure what would happen in that situation, or if it has. I guess falling on my ass would be considered newsworthy. I'll have to look into what has happened when actual TV commercials have used snippets of youtube videos. I'm sure thay had to secure permission from everyone in the video, and its creator.

02-28-2014, 04:29 PM	#12
Winder Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Tennessee Posts: 6,617	Originally posted by Steve.Ledger What sort of deluded mind would think that an actors lines in a movie, dubbed or not represents the actor's personal opinion, thoughts and intent? Nutzoid.... Obviously the world is full of nutzoids. Dutch cartoonist Kurt Westergaard has been attack several times for insulting Mohammed and several other planned attacks were prevented.

02-28-2014, 04:33 PM	#13
rawr Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11,913	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.

02-28-2014, 04:57 PM	#14
kentishrev Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2014 Posts: 180	Originally posted by fretlessdavis I know there is no right to privacy, but it's being used commercially, is it not? Youtube and Faccebook are profiting of it's distribution? It is a hypothetical. I wouldn't sue over that. But aren't people's likeness being used commercially without their consent? I have been printing some of my street shots, and only will display ones where someone's face isn't easily discernible, since I didn't have their permission. This is an interesting one. As street photography is becoming more popular it seems, there are more and more images and competitions around it. The terms of magazine competitions usually require you to hand over control of the photograph to the publishers to use as they wish. Can they do that with recognisable faces?

02-28-2014, 06:08 PM - 1 Like	#15
Na Horuk Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Slovenia, probably Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,186	I think in this case you need to take into consideration the specific context.