Innocence Of Muslims Actress Now Argues That The Movie Violates Her Copyright

from the that's-a-crackerjack-legal-team-you're-working-with dept

Welcome back, viewers, to another segment in our “How To Look Like A Complete Legal Know Nothing While Also Making Sure You Keep Streisand-ing Yourself Into Oblivion” series of posts here at Techdirt (we're working hard on a new segment name; sorry). Remember when we urged YouTube to not censor the controversial hate-film, “Innocence Of Muslims”? And then do you remember how one of the film's actresses, Cindy Garcia, went bonkers in California state court, seemingly alleging everything she could think of against the film's producers in attempt to force YouTube to take the film down? Remember how everyone was surprised to hear a story involving censorship that didn't have a copyright element to it?

Well, to hell with your surprise, because Cindy Garcia is back in a federal way, and she just claimed copyright infringement (PDF) over her performance and filed DMCA notices to get the film taken down. As Marc Randazza hilariously notes, this is plainly stupid.

An actor’s performance in a film is not an independently copyrightable work. I am surprised that these two attorneys are unfamiliar with this rule of law. They might be well-served to review Aalmuhammed v. Lee, 202 F.3d 1227 (2000). You know, the case that is in pretty much every single copyright textbook published since before the Clinton administration ended. Jesus fucking christ, is it so much to ask that someone take a copyright course before filing a copyright infringement lawsuit?

And that really should be the end to the copyright claim, but certainly not to the liability Garcia may find herself under for attorney and legal fees should she have an anti-SLAPP suit filed against her. The claim here, copyright and otherwise, are obviously made in attempt to get the film, i.e. speech, taken down. No one with even a modicum of understanding of copyright law and precedent could possibly think that she owns the copyright on either the film or her performance. This is settled law. Only the director is recognized as having creative control and, thus, the original copyright on the work. The MPAA and WIPO may be touting new monopoly powers for actors to dictate how their performances are expanded upon, but that wouldn't apply here. And, lest you naively think that this is just Cindy Garcia, non-lawyer, almost-actress being all spurious and whatnot, she has an actual legal team working with her on this, and there is no evidence as of yet that this legal team is actually composed of drunk orangutans. These theoretically non-ape lawyers also have some curious notions about the laws and how this nation operates. The following is from their press release.

“We are seeking the legally appropriate mechanism and the least politically controversial one to allow Google and YouTube to do the right thing,” according to M. Cris Armenta, counsel to Ms. Garcia. “Again, this is not a First Amendment case. But, the First Amendment does protect American’s [sic] rights to freedom to express, and also the right to be free from expression.” In Ms. Garcia’s case, the words that were dubbed over her performance were not hers and she finds them personally and profoundly offensive. Ms. Garcia has publicly stated worldwide, including in live broadcasts to Middle Eastern television stations that she does not condone the message in the film and would never willingly participate in such a hateful venture.

If this does not amount to an immediate rescinding of Armenta's license to practice law, that's a major problem. This is not legally appropriate and it is politically controversial because you're looking to censor speech because your client didn't bother to understand what she was getting into. I'll note again, as I did in my last post concerning Ms. Garcia, that neither she, nor her fellow enraged actors and actresses, were equally enraged for the 4 months or so the trailer was on YouTube before the mainstream media had picked the story up and the protests had begun. Her legal team can dictate all they want that this is not a First Amendment case, but simply saying so doesn't make it so.

Though, I suppose I should not be shocked that Armenta doesn't understand that this is a First Amendment case when he apparently doesn't really know what the First Amendment is. That line up there? The one that includes him telling us how the First Amendment protects our “right to be free from expression”? In case you were wondering, that's made up. There is more reality in the Twilight series than there is in that statement.

So, while I too find the film to be offensive both in taste and in some truly awful production qualities, I hope the film's producer has a competent enough attorney to anti-SLAPP the crap out of Garcia's copyright suit. The fact of the matter is that the movie business wouldn't be able to survive if the court said individual actors owned the copyrights on their own performance.

Filed Under: , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Innocence Of Muslims Actress Now Argues That The Movie Violates Her Copyright”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Machin Shin (profile) says:

Maybe different motives?

I for one look at this and kind of wonder if maybe making a lot of noise is the entire point of this. She found herself in a movie that might make certain people want to hurt her. As a result doing things like this while making her look stupid could very well help direct anger away from her.

Of course… That could just be me holding out hope that there are not really such total morons out there.

Anonymous Coward says:

‘The fact of the matter is that the movie business wouldn’t be able to survive if the court said individual actors owned the copyrights on their own performance.’

They would get the law changed. This actresses action is based on the example of the minimalists, wher copyright has to be cleared for almost all bought items.

sehlat (profile) says:

She Is Now Officially Unemployable As An Actress

Who in their right mind would hire her after trying this stunt? She’s made it right and plain that, if she doesn’t like what the producers did with her work, she will sue.

Admittedly “Innocence” is a pretty egregious example, but nobody would have any faith that she wouldn’t do it later for something even less egregious.

Anonymous Coward says:

IS the agreement to act in the film a contractual relationship? Could the director’s deception about the film’s contents be considered as misrepresentation to the degree it allows the contract to be voided?

It seems reasonable to assume that were the full nature of the intended film disclosed, some individuals would not have chosen to associate themselves with it.

G Thompson (profile) says:

Re: Re:

True and if you read the post by Mr Randazza he even states that there could be some cause of action (ie: fraud, unfair business practice, etc) though it is definitely not copyright!

Instead by actually filing this action herself she (as well as her attorneys) and for submitting a claim have set them selves up for fraud especially with regards to: ?filed an application for a federal copyright registration for the rights in her dramatic performance ?Desert Warrior.?? (Complaint at ? 11) and ?has issued five DMCA ?takedown notices? to Defendants YouTube and Google.? (Complaint at ? 13)

Not a good thing and either her attorneys are incompetent or stupid, personally I think it’s both

Applesauce says:

Actual Law is irrelevant.

It doesn’t matter that she has nothing to stand on in copyright law. Court Cases, if successful, create new law. A lawsuit is never about following the law, it is about WINNING. And the thing to remember is that surprising verdicts are often rendered that make no sense to an ordinary person’s interpretation of the law. The Orangutans mentioned are probably savvy enough to know this. They are rolling the dice and they might actually win, law as written be damned. Long odds, true, but others have won before.

Michael (profile) says:

Re: Actual Law is irrelevant.

“Court Cases, if successful, create new law”

I will assume, for the moment, that you do not live in the United States – which is where this is happening.

In this country, Congress creates new laws (often, apparently, with the help of the entertainment industry). The court system interprets and applies these laws. In some cases, it can use general consensus to negate laws (jury nullification), but it has no way to create law.

Applesauce says:

Re: Re: Actual Law is irrelevant.

Actually, I do live in the US.

Your description of how only Congress makes the laws is true, but only in theory. By using their (often creative and elastic) power to interpret the laws, courts DO create new law.

I have, to my sorrow, personally experienced this. One example that most people are familiar with is last year’s Citizen’s United ruling from the Supreme Court, which ruled that corporations are persons with the same free speech rights as ‘real’ people. This was never established by Congress or by the state legislatures that charter corporations, but is now law of the land.

OC says:

From what I read about this mess the words spoken by the actors are no longer in the movie. They were dubbed and the dialogue in the movie is completely different from what they were actually saying.

It looks like Tim says the actress should have known this would happen which is quite strange. (… your client didn’t bother to understand what she was getting into.) Basically, that every duped person only has him or herself to blame.

I don’t think this is a copyright case either, and hope it doesn’t go further, but I do think it’s soem kind of fraud committed when the actors are used in this way. I’ll leave the details for others to decide on though.

Rikuo (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

She knew of the film’s existence, obviously being an actress in it. One would think that she would have at least watched it on Youtube once.
Now, I am not a lawyer nor do I have access to the contract she (must have) signed with the director. If she wants to sue him because he over-dubbed her lines, fine. However, it doesn’t mean she has a copyright claim to the movie. As Tim states, she would have signed a work-for-hire contract, meaning she gave up any and all copyright claims. And no, just because the director over-dubbed her lines, more than likely doesn’t mean suddenly she gets her copyrights back: otherwise, you’d have actors suing left right and centre every time a director cuts a scene.

Rikuo (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

Oh, my apologies.

Fraud? Hmm, it is a tough one. The director more or less has complete creative control over a movie. So, cutting scenes, adding effects, changing dialogue, they’re all part of what he is allowed to do. Unless the contract between the actress and the director gives the actress some measure of control over what ends up in the final product…I’m afraid that in my opinion, she’s out of luck.
That is my viewpoint. Feel free to point out where I may be wrong.

Cindy Garcia (user link) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

I t was not a work for hire, the casting call back stage says so. Never signed a contract for hire, only IMDb credits. The document that google came up with is a fake document. Proven had it analyzed by a forensic handwriting specialist.
I only wanted to clear my name not be tied to the death of our ambassador & navy seals. I thought America would give a damn, But no they protect a federal snitch, the man who wrote the nightmare film then put it on the you tube. I had no idea someone would make death threats against me when I came forward, actually the media came after me, I did not go after them, this all is embarrassing to me. All i did was want to clear my name. As far as suing anyone I was not gonna go there, but I am dealing with liars and all they have done is piss me off. Yes now I am fighting this thing. As far as Hollywood goes they have nothing to do with what this guy did. He did this with a agenda to stir up trouble. Myself I think this video was a smoke screen to cover up other crap that was really going on. I happen to care about what happened to our Ambassador & Navy Seals. And I am no coward I have nothing to hide.

Anonymous Coward says:

The claim of copyright in her performance is not particularly farfetched. Here’s one lawyer’s analysis of the claim, (with legal citations), as well as a rebuttal to a colleague who disagreed with him.

Cindy Garcia says:

the innocence of Cindy Garcia

You people are clueless, none of you know me. I have rights as well. That man put words in my mouth that I did not say, I followed my script. He changed it, I spoke with Him, he told me to tell the world that I was innocent that it was he who wrote this script the way he did because he was tired of radical Muslims killing innocent people. I would never agree to that. I know what I signed and no one is going to slap a law suite on me you dummy. I have done no wrong. I want my name cleared and will go ton every length according to our laws to do it. So put that in your pipe and smoke it, because it sounds to me like you are high on something. As far as me being money hungry there again you have me wrong. What I get goes to help orphans and widows. So before you start putting your mouth on people get to know who they are…………..

Cindy garcia (user link) says:


This was not a work for hire as posted in the original casting call backstage. Look it up only signed for IMDb credits which never came forward. The original film was supposed to be Dessert Warrior. The name was changed our lines were dubbed over. I had a forinsic handwritten specialist investigate the document that Sam came up with. None of the other actors signed on either. I don’t want my name tied to any of this . The killing of our Ambassador and others. What the hell is wrong with all u people. Talk about brain dead.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...