Innocence of Muslims Actress Adds Copyright Infringement to Legal Claims
Get Legal Help Today
Secured with SHA-256 Encryption
UPDATED: Sep 27, 2012
It’s all about you. We want to help you make the right legal decisions.
We strive to help you make confident insurance and legal decisions. Finding trusted and reliable insurance quotes and legal advice should be easy. This doesn’t influence our content. Our opinions are our own.
Editorial Guidelines: We are a free online resource for anyone interested in learning more about legal topics and insurance. Our goal is to be an objective, third-party resource for everything legal and insurance related. We update our site regularly, and all content is reviewed by experts.
Cindy Lee Garcia, an actress who appeared in the highly controversial anti-Muslim film, Innocence of Muslims, has filed new legal claims in federal court. The actress says she was duped into partaking in a film she didn’t know was radically anti-Muslim; and after receiving death threats and ongoing harassment she is taking extensive legal measures to get the film out of the public eye.
Garcia previously filed suit with the Los Angeles Superior Court against YouTube and Google, and the film’s suspected director, alleging fraud, slander and intentional infliction of emotional distress. She also petitioned the judge to order the clip that has caused horrendous violence and outrage in the Middle East and around the world, removed from YouTube. The judge denied her claim last week, according to a Reuters report.
The distraught actress is now claiming in new federal litigation that by showing the film, YouTube is violating her copyrights to the project. Garcia’s lawyer is likening the copyright issue to that of a celebrity sex tape released without permission, from which a person’s privacy rights are violated and harm is caused. On these grounds, she claims she never gave anyone permission, including to YouTube, to publish her performance and that she never signed a release form. Google, owner of YouTube, retorts that actors who appear in videos have no rights to protection from negative backlash from the viewing public, and thus they are not responsible to act in response to harm she is caused.
Copyright Protection Starts as Soon as a Work Is Created
The issue remains that if a person does not sign away copyrights of their work to another, they retain control over that work. Under copyright law, in order to have copyright protection, a person does not need to register their work; copyright protection is a given as soon as a work of intellectual property is created. Applying for an official copyright can provide a legal record and solidification of copyrighted work, but is not required for protection.
In order to win her federal case, Garcia and her lawyer will have to prove that her performance, or that any acting performance, is copyrightable. To aid in this effort, they have initiated measures to copyright her work on the film with the U.S. Copyright Office, according to the Hollywood Reporter. Defendants in the federal case will likely counter that the actress agreed to be in the film and was aware that it would be distributed to the public when it was filmed.
Nonetheless, Garcia and her legal counsel are not backing down and voicing strong opinions about the online video site’s refusal to remove the clip. “I think we should be very clear that Google and YouTube are doing the wrong thing, that they say in their own terms and guidelines that hate speech is not allowed,” Garcia’s attorney, Cris Armenta said, according to this news article. “How can this not be hate speech? How can this not be wrong, morally intellectually, legally?”