Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Ninth Circuit Arguments in <i>Innocence of Muslims</i> Case
Actress Cindy Lee Garcia's two-year quest to scrub the Internet of her appearance in the anti-Islamic film Innocence of Muslims was the departure point for roving arguments before an 11-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in December. In a discussion that touched on the copyright interest owed to artists from Celine Dion to an extra in a battle scene of one of the Lord of the Rings movies, the Ninth Circuit considered Garcia's claim to a copyright in her performance in the film and whether it warrants an injunction barring Google Inc. from hosting the video on YouTube. Garcia v. Google Inc., 12-57302.
Garcia originally filed suit in September 2012, claiming she'd agreed to perform in an Arabian adventure project with the working title of Desert Warrior. Only later, she says, did she discover her performance was used in Innocence of Muslims . A 14-minute trailer posted on YouTube ignited violent protests among Muslims and sparked death threats against Garcia and others involved in the film. After filing several takedown notices with Google, Garcia sued for an order that the film be removed. It was in November 2012 that the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California rejected Garcia's request for a preliminary injunction. However, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit subsequently ruled 2-1 that Google must take down the film, finding that Garcia held a copyright interest in her performance. Garcia v. Google Inc., 743 F.3d 1258 (9th Cir. 2014). The panel's decision was vacated, however, when a majority of the full court voted to take up the case en banc .
Industry Support For Google
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.