Garcia v. Google, Inc.

Last updated

Garcia v. Google, Inc.
Seal of the United States Courts, Ninth Judicial Circuit.svg
Court United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Citation(s)786 F.3d 733
Case history
Appealed fromDistrict Court
Appealed toU.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Garcia v. Google, Inc., 786 F.3d 733 (9th Cir. 2015), is an ongoing dispute that arose when Cindy Lee Garcia sued Google and its video-sharing website, YouTube, to have the controversial film, Innocence of Muslims , taken down from the site. A California district court denied Garcia's motion for preliminary injunction, but, on appeal, a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the lower court's decision, ordered YouTube to take down all copies of Innocence of Muslims, and remanded the case to the district court for reconsideration. [1] In May 2015, in an en banc opinion, the Ninth Circuit reversed the panel's decision, vacating the order for the preliminary injunction.

Contents

Background

Garcia's participation in the film

In July 2011, Garcia auditioned for a film by writer and producer Mark Basseley Youssef, also known as Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, with the working title Desert Warrior. A casting call described the film as "an HD 24P historical Arabian Desert adventure film," and Garcia was ultimately cast to play a minor role, that of a mother of a young woman who had been promised in marriage to the movie's protagonist. [2] Garcia participated in three and one-half days of shooting and was paid $500 for her work. [1] [3]

International reaction to Innocence of Muslims

Ultimately, Youssef used the footage from Desert Warrior to create the controversial anti-Islamic film, Innocence of Muslims . [2] He added the anti-Islamic content to the film by dubbing over the actors' lines without their knowledge. [4] In particular, Youssef had partially dubbed one of Garcia's lines in order to have her character ask, "Is your Mohammed a child molester?" [1] Innocence of Muslims screened at the Vine Theater in Los Angeles, California [5] and was uploaded to YouTube on July 1, 2012. [6] By September, Youssef had translated the film into Arabic and drew the attention of the Arabic-speaking world. [6]

An Egyptian cleric issued a fatwa, condemning all involved with the film to death. [1] On September 11, 2012, a series of protests began in response to a YouTube trailer for Innocence of Muslims. While the protests began at the diplomatic mission in Cairo, Egypt, unrest quickly spread to several other countries with significant Muslim populations, including Yemen, Greece, Sudan, Tunisia, India, Indonesia, and Pakistan. [6] Garcia herself received death threats due to her involvement with the film. [1]

Lawsuit

District Court

Garcia asked Google to take down the film from YouTube on eight occasions pursuant to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. [1] [3] After Google declined, Garcia sued the company on September 26, 2012, in federal district court in California. [7] She claimed that the film's continued existence on YouTube violated her copyright interest in her performance in the film. She applied to the court for a temporary restraining order to force Google to take down the film. [3]

The district court treated Garcia's application for a temporary restraining order as an application for a preliminary injunction. To succeed on a claim for preliminary injunction, Garcia had to show four factors: a likelihood that she would succeed on the merits of the copyright claim, the likelihood that irreparable harm will result if the court does not grant the injunction, and the balance of the equity to the parties and the public interest in granting or denying relief. The court denied the application "because Garcia had delayed in bringing the action, had failed to demonstrate 'that the requested preliminary relief would prevent any alleged harm' and was unlikely to succeed on the merits because she'd granted Youssef an implied license to use her performance in the film." [1]

In a declaration given by David Hardy, president of DMCA Solutions, YouTube's typical notice-and-counter-notice process is described. Hardy then shares his conversations with YouTube over the Innocence of Muslims video and characterizes YouTube's responses as purposeful delay tactics and feigning ignorance on copyright law [8]

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's decision denying Garcia a preliminary injunction, forcing Google to take down all copies of Innocence of Muslims from YouTube. The Ninth Circuit also remanded the case for retrial on the merits of Garcia's copyright claim.

Ninth Circuit opinion

The Ninth Circuit held that Garcia was entitled to a preliminary injunction because she was likely to succeed on the merits of her copyright claim. The court determined that Garcia likely owned an independent, copyrightable interest in her own performance in the film. Specifically, the court explained that Garcia's performance was "fixed" and that her "body language, facial expression and reactions to other actors and elements of a scene" constituted sufficient originality, both requirements of the Copyright Act of 1976. Further, the court concluded that Garcia never intended to be a "joint author," so Youssef had no co-ownership of her performance in the film.

Additionally, the court determined that Garcia was not an "employee" for purposes of transferring her ownership interest in her performance under the Copyright Act. The court pointed out that the term "employee" refers "to a hired party in a conventional employer relationship." According to the court, because "Youssef hired Garcia for a specific task, she only worked for three days and she claims she received no health or other traditional employment benefits" suggests that she was not an "employee" under the statute. Garcia never transferred her interest in writing, either. [1]

On November 12, 2014, the full Ninth Circuit voted to rehear the case en banc. [9] As part of that order, the court vacated its prior opinion, meaning that it can no longer be cited and is not binding on lower courts. The order has no effect on the injunction, meaning that Google still may not post the allegedly infringing portions of the film, at least for the time being.[ citation needed ]

In May 2015, in an en banc opinion, the Ninth Circuit reversed the panel's decision, vacating the order for the preliminary injunction. [10] [11] [12]

Reactions

Criticism

Prior to its reversal in an en banc opinion, the Ninth Circuit's decision sparked criticism from the legal community, as well as those who produce, distribute, or host copyrighted content. [2]

The Electronic Frontier Foundation ("EFF") has criticized the court's decision for several reasons. First, "the Copyright Office expressly rejected [Garcia's] effort to register a copyright," suggesting that her claim is "doubtful at best." Second, the EFF argues that the court's decision amounts to a "prior restraint of speech, something that should never happen when the claim is 'doubtful.'" Even worse, the EFF argues, the decision may signal that any party who has added "anything even remotely creative to a work" may have the right to receive a share in the profits of that work, and he or she may have the power to remove that work from circulation. [13]

Clark D. Asay, associate professor of law at Brigham Young University, reiterates some of the EFF's concerns. He suggests that the Ninth Circuit's decision could lead to censorship, wherein a small contributor to a creative work can effectively close off public access to the work. He also argues that the decision undercuts the utilitarian purpose of copyright law. [3]

Stefan M. Mentzer, a partner at White & Case, LLP, argues that the court misinterpreted certain provisions of the Copyright Act. [2]

Flynn v. Google

In September 2014, Gaylor Flynn, another actor who appeared in Innocence of Muslims, sued Google in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California alleging copyright infringement. [14]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fair use</span> Concept in copyright law

Fair use is a doctrine in United States law that permits limited use of copyrighted material without having to first acquire permission from the copyright holder. Fair use is one of the limitations to copyright intended to balance the interests of copyright holders with the public interest in the wider distribution and use of creative works by allowing as a defense to copyright infringement claims certain limited uses that might otherwise be considered infringement. The US "fair use doctrine" is generally broader than the "fair dealing" rights known in most countries that inherited English Common Law. The fair use right is a general exception, that applies to all different kinds of uses with all types of works. In the U.S., fair use right/exception is based on a flexible proportionality test, that examines the purpose of the use, the amount used, and the impact on the market of the original work.

<i>In re Aimster Copyright Litigation</i>

In re Aimster Copyright Litigation, 334 F.3d 643, was a case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit addressed copyright infringement claims brought against Aimster, concluding that a preliminary injunction against the file-sharing service was appropriate because the copyright owners were likely to prevail on their claims of contributory infringement, and that the services could have non-infringing users was insufficient reason to reverse the district court's decision. The appellate court also noted that the defendant could have limited the quantity of the infringements if it had eliminated an encryption system feature, and if it had monitored the use of its systems. This made it so that the defense did not fall within the safe harbor of 17 U.S.C. § 512(i). and could not be used as an excuse to not know about the infringement. In addition, the court decided that the harm done to the plaintiff was irreparable and outweighed any harm to the defendant created by the injunction.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">M. Margaret McKeown</span> American judge (born 1951)

Mary Margaret McKeown is a Senior United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit based in San Diego. McKeown has served on the Ninth Circuit since her confirmation in 1998.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Susan Illston</span> American judge (born 1948)

Susan Yvonne Illston is a senior United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. She was nominated by President Bill Clinton and confirmed by the Senate in 1995. She assumed senior status in 2013.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Kim McLane Wardlaw</span> American judge (born 1954)

Kim McLane Wardlaw is an American lawyer and jurist serving as a U.S. circuit judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit since 1998. She is the first Hispanic American woman to be appointed to a federal appeals court. Wardlaw was considered as a possible candidate to be nominated by Barack Obama to the Supreme Court of the United States.

<i>Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc. v. Nintendo of America, Inc.</i> 1992 American court case on copyright

Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc. v. Nintendo of America, Inc. is a 1992 legal case where the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit concluded that there was no copyright infringement made by the Game Genie, a video game accessory that could alter the output of games for the Nintendo Entertainment System. The court determined that Galoob's Game Genie did not violate Nintendo's exclusive right to make derivative works of their games, because the Game Genie did not create a new permanent work. The court also found that the alterations produced by the Game Genie qualified as non-commercial fair use, and none of the alterations were supplanting demand for Nintendo's games.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Roger Benitez</span> American judge (born 1950)

Roger Thomas Benitez is a senior United States district judge of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. He is known for his rulings striking down several California gun control laws.

<i>Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc.</i> United States district court case

Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc. was a case in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington regarding the applicability of the first-sale doctrine to software sold under the terms of so-called "shrinkwrap licensing." The court held that when the transfer of software to the purchaser materially resembled a sale it was, in fact, a "sale with restrictions on use" giving rise to a right to resell the copy under the first-sale doctrine. As such, Autodesk could not pursue an action for copyright infringement against Vernor, who sought to resell used versions of its software on eBay. The decision was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which issued a decision on September 10, 2010, reversing the first-sale doctrine ruling and remanding for further proceedings on the misuse of copyright claim. The Ninth Circuit's decision asserted that its ruling was compelled by Ninth Circuit precedent, but observed that the policy considerations involved in the case might affect motion pictures and libraries as well as sales of used software.

<i>Viacom International Inc. v. YouTube, Inc.</i> U.S. copyright court case

Viacom International, Inc. v. YouTube, Inc., 676 F.3d 19, was a United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit decision regarding liability for copyright infringement committed by the users of an online video hosting platform.

Omega S. A. v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 541 F.3d 982, was a case decided by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that held that in copyright law, the first-sale doctrine does not act as a defense to claims of infringing distribution and importation for unauthorized sale of authentic, imported watches that bore a design registered in the Copyright Office. It is contrasted with Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

TiVo Inc. v. EchoStar Corp. is a case stretching from 2004 to 2011, which took place in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. TiVo Inc. sued EchoStar Corp. claiming patent infringement of a DVR technology. The issues addressed during litigation included patent infringement, wording of injunctions, infringing product redesign, contempt of court orders, and contempt sanctions. Ultimately, the court held that EchoStar Corp. had indeed infringed TiVo Inc's patent and was in contempt of court for noncompliance of an injunction. The parties reached a settlement wherein EchoStar Corp. paid TiVo Inc. a licensing fee. Further, the court replaced the established contempt test with a single step test. The simplified test makes it more difficult for patent holders to prove contempt as a result of repeat infringement.

<i>Innocence of Muslims</i> 2012 film by Nakoula Basseley Nakoula

Innocence of Muslims is an anti-Islamic short film that was written and produced by Nakoula Basseley Nakoula. Two versions of the 14-minute video were uploaded to YouTube in July 2012, under the titles "The Real Life of Muhammad" and "Muhammad Movie Trailer". Videos dubbed in Arabic were uploaded during early September 2012. Anti-Islamic content had been added in post-production by dubbing, without the actors' knowledge.

Fox Broadcasting Co. v. Dish Network, LLC is a copyright case in which the United States District Court for the Central District of California, by granting partial summary judgment, denied most parts of the copyright claims presented by Fox Broadcasting Company (Fox) against Dish Network (Dish) for its service, a DVR-like device that allowed users to record programming that could be accessed later through any Internet-connected device. The service offered by Dish also allowed users to record any or all Fox's prime-time programs and to automatically skips commercials (AutoHop).

<i>Connection Distributing Co. v. Holder</i>

Connection Distributing Co. v. Holder, 557 F.3d 321 is a case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that the record-keeping provisions of the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act did not violate the First Amendment.

Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 572 U.S. 663 (2014), is a United States Supreme Court copyright decision in which the Court held 6-3 that the equitable defense of laches is not available to copyright defendants in claims for damages.

American Broadcasting Cos., Inc. v. Aereo, Inc, 573 U.S. 431 (2014), was a United States Supreme Court case. The Court ruled that the service provided by Aereo, which allowed subscribers to view live and time-shifted streams of over-the-air television on Internet-connected devices, violated copyright laws.

Google has been involved in multiple lawsuits over issues such as privacy, advertising, intellectual property and various Google services such as Google Books and YouTube. The company's legal department expanded from one to nearly 100 lawyers in the first five years of business, and by 2014 had grown to around 400 lawyers. Google's Chief Legal Officer is Senior Vice President of Corporate Development David Drummond.

<i>Washington v. Trump</i> Lawsuit challenging Executive Order 13769

State of Washington and State of Minnesota v. Trump, 847 F.3d 1151, was a lawsuit that challenged the constitutionality of Executive Order 13769, issued by U.S. president Donald Trump.

<i>Intl Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump</i>

International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump, 883 F. 3d 233, was a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, sitting en banc, upholding an injunction against enforcement of Proclamation No. 9645, titled "Enhancing Vetting Capabilities and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry Into the United States by Terrorists or Other Public-Safety Threats", a presidential proclamation signed by President Donald Trump on September 24, 2017. The proclamation indefinitely suspends the entry into the U.S. of some or all immigrant and non-immigrant travelers from eight countries. It is a successor to Executive Order 13769, entitled "Protection of the Nation from Terrorist Entry into the United States," which were also enjoined by the District Court of Maryland and the Fourth Circuit in a case decided in 2017 by the same name of International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump, 857 F.3d 554.

<i>hiQ Labs v. LinkedIn</i> 2019 United States court case

hiQ Labs, Inc. v. LinkedIn Corp., 938 F.3d 985, was a United States Ninth Circuit case about web scraping. The 9th Circuit affirmed the district court's preliminary injunction, preventing LinkedIn from denying the plaintiff, hiQ Labs, from accessing LinkedIn's publicly available LinkedIn member profiles. hiQ is a small data analytics company that used automated bots to scrape information from public LinkedIn profiles.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Garcia v. Google, no. 12-57302 (9th Cir. Feb. 26, 2014). Accessed November 3, 2014.
  2. 1 2 3 4 "The Garcia v. Google controversy and what it means for content owners and users". Lexology.com. March 20, 2014. Retrieved November 3, 2014.
  3. 1 2 3 4 Asay, Clark D. (August 20, 2014). "Ex Post Incentives and IP in Garcia v. Google and Beyond". Stanford Law Review. Retrieved November 3, 2014.
  4. ↑ Adrian Chen. "'It Makes Me Sick': Actress in Muhammed Movie Says She Was Deceived, Had No Idea It Was About Islam". Gawker. Archived from the original on October 23, 2014. Retrieved November 3, 2014.
  5. ↑ Hollie McKay. "'Innocence of Muslims' producer's identity in question; actors say they were duped, overdubbed". Fox News. Retrieved November 3, 2014.
  6. 1 2 3 "'Innocence of Muslims' unrest". Timelines.latimes.com. Retrieved November 3, 2014.
  7. ↑ Downey, Anne (February 2015). "Does an actress own the copyright in her 5-second movie performance?" (PDF). Bar Association of Erie County Library. 54 (6): 1 – via HEIN Online.
  8. ↑ "Declaration of David Hardy | PDF".
  9. ↑ Garcia v. Google , no. 12-57302 (9th Cir. Nov. 12, 2014)(order).
  10. ↑ Chappell, Bill (May 18, 2015). "Google Wins Copyright And Speech Case Over 'Innocence Of Muslims' Video". NPR. Retrieved May 18, 2015.
  11. ↑ Gardner, Eriq (May 18, 2015). "Controversial 'Innocence of Muslims' Ruling Reversed By Appeals Court". The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved May 18, 2015.
  12. ↑ Garcia v. Google , no. 12-57302 (9th Cir. May 18, 2015)(en banc).
  13. ↑ "Garcia v. Google, Inc". Electronic Frontier Foundation. March 25, 2014. Retrieved November 3, 2014.
  14. ↑ Chung, Andrew (September 15, 2014). "Second actor sues Google over 'Innocence of Muslims' movie trailer". Reuters. Retrieved August 19, 2015.

Other sources

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.