US court orders removal of anti-Islam film from YouTube

[hellheaven1987]

Oh well...

A US federal court has ordered Google to remove from YouTube a crude anti-Islam film which sparked deadly riots across the Muslim world.

In a 2-1 decision, the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favour of an actress who said she was tricked into appearing in the film.

The film denounces the Prophet Muhammad as a fraud and worse.

The ruling turned on a copyright issue not the film's content, which YouTube said did not violate its standards.

The clip from the film entitled Innocence of Muslims sparked violence in several places around the world in 2012. Dozens of people died in the Middle East during the protests.

The film has also been linked to the attack on a US diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya, in which killed four Americans including the US ambassador were killed.

YouTube, which is owned by Google, had rebuffed requests to remove the film from the website, saying only the filmmaker and not the actress, Cindy Lee Garcia, owned the copyright.

Garcia sued Google to demand they remove the video, arguing the man behind it, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, gave her a script that referred neither to Muslims nor to the Prophet. She said her voice was dubbed over in post-production to make it appear as though she was speaking the inflammatory words.

Depicting the Prophet Muhammad in any way defies Islamic belief and offends Muslims, let alone satirising and mocking him, as the film does.

Source

I don't understand how the voice actress of the film suddnely has the "right" of film now, can someone explains that?

[Phier]

9th circus, surprising....

The ironic thing is now we will have the Barbra Streisand effect

[Denny Crane!]

Clearly Obama is a muslim.

[Col. Tartleton]

Clearly Obama is a muslim.

He has said he is before, but he was lying.

At the core of the Obama problem, is that he's so full of that sometimes people believe him to his detriment.

[knight of meh]

I don't understand how the voice actress of the film suddnely has the "right" of film now, can someone explains that?

she doesn't inherently have the right ; but the courts are upholding it because the post production stuff was so far removed from what she was told was happening , and the real world implications like threats against her and the riots etc

[mongrel]

she doesn't inherently have the right ; but the courts are upholding it because the post production stuff was so far removed from what she was told was happening , and the real world implications like threats against her and the riots etc

Indeed , it is akin to dubbing over some work by George Takei to say homophobic stuff for a Ugandan audience , or comissioning a Ted Nugent video dubbed to give favorable views of Obama or arbortion. It is entirely reasonable for performing artists to have their professionaal work protected against such abuse. It would seem that "Im" Becile's work was such that he could not get people to proclaim whatever message he intended to make honestly.

[Earl Dibbles Jr]

Moral of the story; if you don't like something throw a fit like a 5 year old and start flipping over cars, attacking officials, and scaring people. Make sure you have some buddies to back you up so the media can call it a "riot" and demand the removal of whatever you deemed bad.

[Condottiere 40K]

I see it as two aspects, public interest and contract. Though I'd say it would largely depend on the language of the contract, normal expectations and compensation.

[Armenum]

I feel like the makers of the film made it just to get media attention.

[Roma_Victrix]

I feel like the makers of the film made it just to get media attention.

All exposure is good exposure? There's no such thing as bad press? Things to consider, until you wind up like Theo van Gogh.

Obviously the most depressing part about this story is that people actually died because of these riots.

[hellheaven1987]

Obviously the most depressing part about this story is that people actually died because of these riots.

You mean Christians actually died because of those riots.

[Armenum]

All exposure is good exposure? There's no such thing as bad press? Things to consider, until you wind up like Theo van Gogh.

Obviously the most depressing part about this story is that people actually died because of these riots.

I think for some people it doesn't matter who gets hurt or dies. They usually don't think ahead that far and think they will be some kind of "revered heroes" for their "daring" work.

[Heathen Hammer]

So much for freedom of speech. Also the actress doesn't own the copyright to the film either, so she can't really "order" it removed. US courts are just using an opportunity to silence an inconvenient opinion.

[knight of meh]

So much for freedom of speech. Also the actress doesn't own the copyright to the film either, so she can't really "order" it removed. US courts are just using an opportunity to silence an inconvenient opinion.

what about the right not to have your speech misused to such an extent that your getting death threats?

[Heathen Hammer]

what about the right not to have your speech misused to such an extent that your getting death threats?

Death threats are illegal. Those who make them should be prosecuted. Maybe US government should do that, instead of trying to accommodate the needs of fanatical islamist morons.
Her speech wasn't misused, since she does not own the rights for this film.

[YuriVII]

Death threats are illegal. Those who make them should be prosecuted. Maybe US government should do that, instead of trying to accommodate the needs of fanatical islamist morons.
Her speech wasn't misused, since she does not own the rights for this film.

Usually I would side against the courts. And you are right, it is a way to take an unwanted opinion off the air. But the actress is also right. She was outright manipulated into releasing her talent for something she may not agree with. Very unchristian of the producer to do that to her and for the motives behind the film. They used her likeness (voice) in something she would not have agreed to had she known the truth and they consciously lied to her in order to fool her.

Say I'm an artist and I am commisioned as part of a team to make a sculpture for a patron depicting the brotherhood of man, but the patron than rearranges the individual pieces of my sculpture to form a swastika. I don't know the legality of it but I would like to claim something along the lines of fraud.

Moral of the story:
If you are gonna do something socially unpopular you better have your legal ducks in a row because the lawmen will look for any minor excuse to repress you.

[Vanoi]

Death threats are illegal.

According to what? Only real threats are prosecuted. We have been over this before.

[Caduet]

like why bother now? da mooslems have probably forgotten about this. seems kinda pointless to "accommodate" them after the outrage has been dead for like a year.

[Durnaug]

Obama is a sock puppet.

Say the following out loud, in a high-pitched silly voice reminiscent of a children's TV presenter...

"Yes we can!"

[Gromovnik]

Awesome. Violence gives you what you want. Every single time.