• Welcome to RCCrawler Forums.

    It looks like you're enjoying RCCrawler's Forums but haven't created an account yet. Why not take a minute to register for your own free account now? As a member you get free access to all of our forums and posts plus the ability to post your own messages, communicate directly with other members, and much more. Register now!

    Already a member? Login at the top of this page to stop seeing this message.

Court orders anti-Muslim film offline

johnnyh66

Scale Detail Engineering
Joined
Apr 6, 2010
Messages
5,573
Location
Turtle Island
This is a mess.
Court orders anti-Muslim film offline | Al Jazeera America

src.adapt.960.high.1393513098446.jpg


A U.S. appeals court ordered YouTube on Wednesday to take down an anti-Muslim film that sparked violent riots in parts of the Middle East and death threats to the actors.
The decision by a divided panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco reinstated a lawsuit filed against YouTube by an actress who appeared briefly in the 2012 video that led to rioting and deaths because of its negative portrayal of the Prophet Muhammad.
YouTube resisted calls by President Barack Obama and other world leaders to take down the video, arguing that to do so amounted to unwarranted government censorship and would violate the Google-owned company's free speech protections. Besides, the company argued that the makers of "Innocence of Muslims" owned the copyright and only they could remove it from YouTube.
Typically, that is the case with the vast majority of clips posted on YouTube — and Hollywood films in general — that don't violate decency laws and policies. But the 9th Circuit said Wednesday that this case was far from typical and that the actress, Cindy Lee Garcia, retained a copyright claim that YouTube must respect, since she believed she was acting in a different production than the one that ultimately appeared online.
Garcia was paid $500 to appear for five seconds in a film she was told was called "Desert Warrior." She thought it had nothing to do with religion or radical Islam. When the clip was released, her lines were dubbed to have her character asking Muhammad if he was a child molester.
"Had Ms. Garcia known the true nature of the propaganda film the producers were planning, she would never have agreed to appear in the movie," said Cris Armenta, Garcia's attorney.
Google argues that the actress had no claim to the film because filmmaker Mark Basseley Youssef wrote the dialogue, managed the entire production and dubbed over Garcia's dialogue during postproduction editing.
Chief Judge Alex Kozinski said the ruling was not a blanket order giving copyright protection to every actor, but that in this case, Garcia's performance was worthy of copyright protection.
"This is a troubling case," Kozinski wrote. “Garcia was duped into providing an artistic performance that was used in a way she never could have foreseen. Her unwitting and unwilling inclusion in Innocence of Muslims led to serious threats against her life. It's disappointing, though perhaps not surprising, that Garcia needed to sue in order to protect herself and her rights."
Youssef, the filmmaker, was sentenced to 21 months in prison for check fraud in 2010 and barred from accessing the Internet without court approval. He was returned to prison in 2012 for violating terms of his probation and was released on probation in September 2013.
For Google, the ruling represents a nettlesome issue if allowed to stand. The company fears that bit players and extras appearing in popular clips will now be emboldened to send takedown notices to YouTube unless settlements can be reached with the filmmakers.
Google Inc., which has removed the clip, said it will appeal the decision to a special 11-judge panel of the appeals court. The next move after that would be to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case.
"We strongly disagree with this ruling and will fight it," said Google spokeswoman Abbi Tatton.
The Associated Press
 
Who dares battle the Saracen :twisted:


Things would be easy if they dident have the oil in that region of the World.
 
Last edited:
Actors never know what their final role in a finished film will be. I think if she has a problem, the court should make her pay back what she was paid for her performance, and order her edited out of the film.
 
Actors never know what their final role in a finished film will be. I think if she has a problem, the court should make her pay back what she was paid for her performance, and order her edited out of the film.
I bet she would be quite happy with that, it would seem to me as is she could be a target of some radical islam bullshit.. i cant say i blame her for wanting it gone.
you really think an actor doesnt know the script? yes changes are oftem made during filming but dubbing in shit that 50% of this fawked up world finds blasphemous is i little beyond a script change and potentialy dangerous for the actors involved who were dubbed in. Im not saying yah or nay to taking the vid down but i can understand the reason.
I agree editing could of been an option but i imagine it would of messed with the filmakers vision/button pushing
 
Last edited:
Anyone else notice the TMZ mic on the stand? Who knew they cared about ACTUAL news and not just what washed up celebrity got arrested for drunk driving recently....
 
Anyone else notice the TMZ mic on the stand? Who knew they cared about ACTUAL news and not just what washed up celebrity got arrested for drunk driving recently....
Lol dont ya know the real news is on the entertainment/comedy channels and the news channels are mostly scripted entertainment/bovine scat:lmao:
 
Anyone else notice the TMZ mic on the stand? Who knew they cared about ACTUAL news and not just what washed up celebrity got arrested for drunk driving recently....

What is REALLY sad is tmz has been known to report what actually happens unlike the majority of the "news" networks. :roll:


As for the topic of the thread the court is overstepping it's bounds by perceiving they have the authority to do anything. It makes sense that it's a san francisco court that did it though. Worthless fawktards that they are down there.

I don't take issue with the majority of the religious folks I meet. It's the extremists of every sect that get the attention so the religion as a whole is judged according to their actions.
 
Im against censorship..to me this is about the actress being used/dubbed with material im sure she wouldnt of agreed to..i guess it depends on the contract as artists/actors often have some control over their likeness..as noted maybee editing her out would of been better
 
Last edited:
I'm worried what impact this ruling could have on casting couch productions...

:mrgreen:
 
I'm worried what impact this ruling could have on casting couch productions...

:mrgreen:

Unfortunately most if not all of those are bs. I heard from a friend... Yea that's it that watched all of them he could find and he started noticing a trend that most of the wimmins were newbie porn actress's. Sorry to kill your fantasy. :flipoff:
 
Back
Top