Want to spend your afternoon both angry and confused? This post is for you! Yesterday, the 9th Circuit issued a decision requiring Google to take down all copies of Innocence of Muslims, a film you may remember as a Breitbart fan favorite that also caused BENGHAZI!!! How can the court order this? Let's lawsplain.
True enough re right of publicity having the same injurious effect on first amendment freedom. But at least there would be a bit more legitimacy to the idea, since the harm to the actress is a personal one, relating to her identity. The harm to her has little to do with a theft of her property via breach of contract.
She wants the video purged (very understandably) because it badly misrepresents her and could put her in danger, not because her right to enjoy the market for her copyrighted material has been infringed. For the fair use analysis, Techdirt covers the bases, with links to further discussion: <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/art..." target="_blank">" rel="nofollow noopener" title="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140227/1506422...">http://www.techdirt.com/art...
Copyright law, as we know, comprises both the protection of IP rights and the protection of the rights of the public and users, which is why Art. I, sec. 8 has that pesky little &quot;limited time&quot; thingy in there and why the fair use doctrine is actual law, rather than just a theory.
Seriously, though, do law schools no longer teach a connection between law and justice or law and morality? Was that a sixties thing?
<i>...she appeared to be asking, &ldquo;Is your Mohammed a child molester?&rdquo;</i>
Interesting. In the <i>Innocence of Christians</i> the District Attorney asks (the Pope? any number of Cardinals or Bishops?) &quot;Is your Priest a child molester?&quot;
Movie is loathsome, its creator should be in jail for incitement to terrorism, riot, bad faith, misrepresentation, and being a massive asshole.
But I really really wish Ms. Garcia had found another legal argument. Using copyright law to stifle unpopular speech is exactly what the Constitution Does. Not. Like. If ever there was a strong fair use claim, Google and Asshole Bigot have it here.
I don&#039;t know why she couldn&#039;t have sued on Right of Publicity grounds, or breach of contract, or both. She might even have argued that the substitution of other voiceover without her permission constitutes libel. She could have sued in the UIK, where the courts never saw a libel suit they didn&#039;t like.
or we could just turn a firehose on his sorry ass any time he slinks out from under whatever rancid pile of dogshit he usually hides under and ventures into public
Oh it really is such a shame too, Breitbartians, that your man Mitt Romney took such an <i>uncharacteristically firm</i> stance in this case, truly standing behind and sticking by his <i>very premature criticism*</i> of the Embassy&#039;s pre-attack message, very much unlike the way he stuck by any other words that he ever uttered in his whole political life!
*And he did it so... <a href="http:\/\/www.outsidethebeltway.com\/romney-campaign-fumbles-initial-response-to-attacks-in-egypt-and-libya\/" target="_blank">prematurely! My goodness gracious in quiet rooms!</a>
It&#039;s almost like he and other Republicans really thought he had this one ace up his sleeve, or something, you know? That odd smirk after delivering his somber announcement press conference <i>surely wasn&#039;t a tell</i> or anything!
Sure, there might be something fishy going there in Benghazi... but I don&#039;t think it was quite what wingnuts think it was.
People!! We risk falling behind if we don&#039;t start developing our hatred of all those <i>Chinese</i> religions. Get with the program!!!
Sadly, taking the thing down now is not likely to protect her much. It&#039;s been copied and distributed all over the effing world. I&#039;d like to see it removed, but not via copyright law. A libel action would do more to protect her reputation.
Certainly serves her interests, and settles the controversy. On the other hand, if that were to pan out, and all of the other actors were to step up with the same demand...
Ha! Made me laugh, +10 points.
Yeah, I thought taste woulda ruled.
Shit, you made me think of James O&#039;Keefe. Thanks a bunch, -10 points.
True enough re right of publicity having the same injurious effect on first amendment freedom. But at least there would be a bit more legitimacy to the idea, since the harm to the actress is a personal one, relating to her identity. The harm to her has little to do with a theft of her property via breach of contract.
She wants the video purged (very understandably) because it badly misrepresents her and could put her in danger, not because her right to enjoy the market for her copyrighted material has been infringed. For the fair use analysis, Techdirt covers the bases, with links to further discussion: <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/art..." target="_blank">" rel="nofollow noopener" title="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140227/1506422...">http://www.techdirt.com/art...
Copyright law, as we know, comprises both the protection of IP rights and the protection of the rights of the public and users, which is why Art. I, sec. 8 has that pesky little &quot;limited time&quot; thingy in there and why the fair use doctrine is actual law, rather than just a theory.
Seriously, though, do law schools no longer teach a connection between law and justice or law and morality? Was that a sixties thing?
<i>...she appeared to be asking, &ldquo;Is your Mohammed a child molester?&rdquo;</i>
Interesting. In the <i>Innocence of Christians</i> the District Attorney asks (the Pope? any number of Cardinals or Bishops?) &quot;Is your Priest a child molester?&quot;
kind of the way Fred Astaire&#039;s widow sold his soul to the devil for that vacuum cleaner commercial
Movie is loathsome, its creator should be in jail for incitement to terrorism, riot, bad faith, misrepresentation, and being a massive asshole.
But I really really wish Ms. Garcia had found another legal argument. Using copyright law to stifle unpopular speech is exactly what the Constitution Does. Not. Like. If ever there was a strong fair use claim, Google and Asshole Bigot have it here.
I don&#039;t know why she couldn&#039;t have sued on Right of Publicity grounds, or breach of contract, or both. She might even have argued that the substitution of other voiceover without her permission constitutes libel. She could have sued in the UIK, where the courts never saw a libel suit they didn&#039;t like.
But of course, the real story is Breitbart promoting the film, causing people to die at Benghazi, and then blaming Obama. Like this: <a href="http://www.snotr.com/video/..." target="_blank">" rel="nofollow noopener" title="http://www.snotr.com/video/8219/Trolling_Cat">http://www.snotr.com/video/...
Declare a catwah.
or we could just turn a firehose on his sorry ass any time he slinks out from under whatever rancid pile of dogshit he usually hides under and ventures into public
with votes, of course
Oh it really is such a shame too, Breitbartians, that your man Mitt Romney took such an <i>uncharacteristically firm</i> stance in this case, truly standing behind and sticking by his <i>very premature criticism*</i> of the Embassy&#039;s pre-attack message, very much unlike the way he stuck by any other words that he ever uttered in his whole political life!
*And he did it so... <a href="http:\/\/www.outsidethebeltway.com\/romney-campaign-fumbles-initial-response-to-attacks-in-egypt-and-libya\/" target="_blank">prematurely! My goodness gracious in quiet rooms!</a>
It&#039;s almost like he and other Republicans really thought he had this one ace up his sleeve, or something, you know? That odd smirk after delivering his somber announcement press conference <i>surely wasn&#039;t a tell</i> or anything!
Sure, there might be something fishy going there in Benghazi... but I don&#039;t think it was quite what wingnuts think it was.
But is your Muhammed halal?
People!! We risk falling behind if we don&#039;t start developing our hatred of all those <i>Chinese</i> religions. Get with the program!!!
Sadly, taking the thing down now is not likely to protect her much. It&#039;s been copied and distributed all over the effing world. I&#039;d like to see it removed, but not via copyright law. A libel action would do more to protect her reputation.
Thank you for writing this - I wouldn&#039;t have done so nearly as succinctly, but it needed to be said.
Certainly serves her interests, and settles the controversy. On the other hand, if that were to pan out, and all of the other actors were to step up with the same demand...