Google ordered to remove anti-Islamic film from YouTube


(Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court on Wednesday ordered Google Inc to remove from its YouTube video-sharing website an anti-Islamic film that had sparked protests across the Muslim world.

By a 2-1 vote, a panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday rejected Google’s assertion that the removal of the film “Innocence of Muslims,” amounted to a prior restraint of speech that violated the U.S. Constitution.

The plaintiff, Cindy Lee Garcia, had objected to the film after learning that it incorporated a clip she had made for a different movie, which had been partially dubbed and in which she appeared to be asking: “Is your Mohammed a child molester?”


So the central issue was whether the actress had a personal copyright on her performance, which had been dubbed with words she would never have uttered. The appeals court ruled that the copyright claim was likely to prevail, hence it issued an injunction against the film.

I sure wouldn’t want the subterfuge of a filmmaker present me in a false and offensive way…


Why don’t the courts order Google to remove every anti-Christian video on YouTube while they are at it?


The court did not rule that all anti-Muslim films be removed from Youtube. The ruling concerned this one specific film.

Imagine a Christian actress was filmed thinking it was pro-Christian film. However, the filmmaker later dubbed her performance in a way that she was denying Christ as God. I think the court would have supported her claim to a personal copyright on her performance.

If you had appeared in a film, and words you would have never uttered were dubbed in, wouldn’t you want the court to rule in your favor?


Did you read the article at all? It has nothing to do with it being anti Muslim and everything to do with copyright law.


I concur, this is copyright issue, and feasibly slander. If you pull together my words to say something I hadn’t said, that’s quite a serious matter.

Little bit disingenuous, I’m sure the producer could have found someone willing to utter hte words.


Oh stop it with the facts, It’'s more fun to be outraged!:smiley:


Yeah, the headline is just a little misleading. :stuck_out_tongue:

It is a terrible thing for the director of the film to do, but I can somewhat see Google’s point that her issue is with the director who made the film, not Google for simply allowing it on YouTube. It’s interesting that the case is being built on her ability to independently copyright the five seconds of the film she appeared in. That seems likely to open up as-yet-unforeseen doors for future litigation.

I can see why Google would want to fight such a ruling. That would have to vastly complicate YouTube’s copyright claim policies and procedures.


Maybe they should take into account this link.


A deserving piece of trash hits the trash! Alls well that ends well!


Because that wouldn’t benefit Satan.


Second thought: It isn’t over yet. Hope someone kept a copy because it may be necessary to refer to it during the trial over Benghazi.


Just to reiterate, this story really doesn’t have much to do with what the video is about. It could have been a video about how to make cotton candy rather than an anti-Islam piece. That would make no difference.

The issue is that a girl was recorded for what she thought was one reason, but then the video of her was dubbed over to make it sound like she said something she never said (and something very offensive), and they used that clip in a different video. Now she appears to be making the claim that she has the copyright to her singular appearance in the film and can thus request YouTube remove the video (just as any copyright holder can ask that YouTube remove a video for which they retain the copyright).

Google maintains that her issue is with the director who employed such sleazy tactics, not with them. I can understand their position. If she can claim copyright for her brief appearance, how many more people will pop up claiming copyright over every little thing?


Google honours DMCA Takedown requests. So that’s not it. Just because the copyright owner is not SONY or FOX does not mean she should be ignored and just told to get lost, u know. :slight_smile:


I recognize that. :stuck_out_tongue: I guess what I am imagining is people claiming copyright and placing takedown requests (or even making a claim for ad revenue) because they were in a short clip on the local news station or were interviewed in Jay Leno’s “Jaywalking” segment. Maybe I’m overthinking it, though.


Strike what I said - I was :confused: I jumped to think it was “The” video.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit