Court Quickly Rejects Contempt Motion Against Google By Innocence Of Muslims' Actress

from the nice-try,-but-no dept

Well, that didn't take long at all. Following Cindy Lee Garcia's bizarre motion for contempt last week, claiming that Google was thumbing its nose at the 9th Circuit's bizarre order to take down all copies of the Innocence of Muslims "trailer" in which she appears for 5-seconds, Google hit back with an exasperated explanation for why nearly everything written in her motion for contempt was simply false. Apparently it was fairly convincing, because the court has wasted little time in denying the motion for contempt, providing no explanation whatsoever. The entire order reads:
Appellant's emergency contempt motion... is denied.
So much for that little wasteful diversion. Now we wait to see if the en banc 9th Circuit will revisit whether or not it's appropriate to issue a stay on the injunction against Google.

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 1 Apr 2014 @ 3:50am

    Please tell me this isn't an April Fool's joke

    And what do you know, it looks genuine!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Anon E. Mous (profile), 1 Apr 2014 @ 4:57am

    I don;t think this is really a surprise considering the basis for her contempt motion and what was described in it as a violation to put Google in contempt according to her and her counsel.

    With that being said I see Google taking this as far they need to to get this ruling reversed. The ruling in itself had seem to go beyond the realm of what one would term as justified.

    I see this being struck down due to the Judge's over reach in deciding her case in the first place with so many fundamental errors in law and how it was achieved

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    arcan, 1 Apr 2014 @ 5:09am

    April Fools, Google is the internet.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 1 Apr 2014 @ 5:32am

    Did this request include any suggestions as to how the task might be accomplished?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 1 Apr 2014 @ 6:05am

    Rights to legitimate "new versions" in ANY media

    The Library of Congress >> Researchers

    Prints and Photographs Reading Room

    Copyright and Other Restrictions That Apply to Publication/Distribution of Images:
    Assessing the Risk of Using a P&P Image


    What About Copying One of P&P's Images from a Book or Other Published Source?

    If you are planning to copy and publish an image from a copyrighted, published source (e.g., a book), you should check with the publisher, since technically it owns the rights to the version appearing in the book--though few publishers realize that or seem to wish to control such copying.

    - - - - - - - - -

    Now search -- library permission "print run" --

    The whole concept of limiting legitimate copyright permissions based on number of print runs is problematic, because if you "own" the copyright on "one" published version, why do you need to keep on asking permission for reprints of your own work? The authorization right shifts to you now. This would make the concept of royalties obsolete. Royalty contracts written under state laws are preempted by federal copyright laws with regard to equivalent rights. The right of a copyright holder to reproduce, distribute, and authorize, are rights equivalent to rights under copyright law, and any publishing agreement is a "restrictive covenant" which is preempted by copyright law, and the agreement is unenforceable, illegal, censorship, and against public policy under common law. See New York v. NETWORK ASSOCIATES, INC. and Microstrategy v. Netsolve.

    So how can the Library of Congress say what they said? On the other hand, why would a third party have to seek permissions to use each and every image from the original source in a published art book, for example.

    Now search -- "print run" copyright court opinion --
    or use the term "lawsuit."

    Courts have upheld the 'print run' limits.

    But things get sticky on the internet, print-on-demand, music, etc. These issues deserve their own research and articles - too much to filter through in a few minutes.

    For example, can someone get a legitimate license to 'compile' and copyright 'one' works in ANY media, and then challenge limitations on "authorizing" third-party use under the Preemption Clause, since the "Right to Authorize" is one of the exclusive rights of a copyright holder of a compiled work, and can't be contracted away under state law, since it is equivalent to a Copy-RIGHT?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 1 Apr 2014 @ 6:41am

    This woman will never work in the industry again whether it be a short or feature film if 5 seconds is considered working.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Pragmatic, 3 Apr 2014 @ 8:22am

      Re:

      Did you know that Harrison Ford had a scene in ET? We never got to see it because it ended up on the cutting room floor. He met his second wife, Melissa Mathesson [sp?], on the set, if memory serves.

      The point is, the actual work you put in is counted as work, not the scene that appears in the movie. If you were right, actors would be paid less because much of what gets filmed ends up being cut for editing purposes - the movie would be many hours longer if scenes didn't get cut.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Cindy GARCIA, 25 Sep 2014 @ 5:50pm

      Re: CINDY GARCIA

      Oh really I lready have and have plenty films coming up

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 1 Apr 2014 @ 6:43am

    Ellipses?

    Are the ellipses part of the order? Is that supposed to indicate a dramatic pause?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Khaim (profile), 1 Apr 2014 @ 7:00am

      Re: Ellipses?

      Mike omitted the legal reference to the contempt motion. Although it does give a bit of dramatic flair.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 1 Apr 2014 @ 7:18am

      Re: Ellipses?

      Tthe original is still quite brutally elegant:

      "Appellant's emergency contempt motion, see Dkt. 67, is denied."

      Even spelling out 'Docket' would have been a waste of the court's time.

      Ho hum, what to do with all the popcorn while waiting for the next episode...

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.