Garcia Case

Loading...

Del curso dictado por Duke University

Copyright for Multimedia

214 calificaciones

Duke University

Copyright for Multimedia

214 calificaciones

Copyright questions about different formats (data, images, music and video) can be especially difficult. Sometimes the law specifically distinguishes between these different formats, and in most cases there are media-specific considerations that impact a copyright analysis. In this course we will look at four different media, paying special attention to the unique issues for each one and the kinds of information that is important when making copyright decisions for each type of material. We will work through fair use issues for each multimedia format, look at format-specific exceptions in the law, and consider unique issues for seeking permission for film, music, images and data. At the end of this course, participants will have a deeper understanding of how to apply our framework for making copyright decisions, and will be more comfortable with assessing multimedia issues. They will have gained more and more diverse experience for considering fair use.

De la lección

Film and Video

Copyright issues for film tend to be complicated because of the number of creators and creative works that come together to make them. In this module, students will learn to apply the fundamentals of copyright with regard to film. Topics covered include identification of the various rights and rights holders involved in many films, the role of copyright exceptions when creating or using film in educational settings, and when and how to seek permission to make use of copyrighted material in films.

Who Owns What4:42

Garcia Case4:33

What Do You Want to Do?10:47

Conoce a los instructores

Kevin Smith, M.L.S., J.D.
Former Director, Copyright and Scholarly Communication
Duke University Libraries
Lisa A. Macklin, J.D.,M.L.S.
Director, Scholarly Communications Office
Robert W. Woodruff Library, Emory University
Anne Gilliland, JD, MLS
Scholarly Communications Officer
University Libraries, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

The recent decision in the Ninth Circuit case of Cindy Lee Garcia V.

Google is very interesting as we think about

who are the rights holders in a film.

>> Mm-hm.

>> So Cindy Garcia answered an ad and

she was given a tiny part in a movie >> She was told

that the movie was an adventure film called the desert warrior.

And she was on screen for five seconds.

She had two lines.

She was paid $500.

And because it was sort of a casual low budget situation,

she never signed any kind of contract.

Yeah, that's always a bad sign.

[LAUGHTER] Well in actuality, the movie was called The Innocence of Muslims.

It was made by some Coptic Christians who were very

upset about the current regime in Egypt.

And it was made in order to discredit Islam.

Garcia's lines were dubbed over with a line that questioned whether the prophet

Mohammad was a child molester.

>> Oh. >> Ugh, inflammatory.

>> Yes. >> The filmmakers uploaded a trailer of

the movie to YouTube and it caused a furor around the Middle East.

There were riots, some people believe that it may have caused or

contributed to the violence in Benghazi, where an ambassador was killed.

And an Egyptian leader called for a fatwa, and Garcia began to get death threats.

>> Wow. >> She was not a happy person.

>> No. >> She tried to get the trailer removed

from YouTube, and she filed a take down notice, but that didn't work.

She then sued both Google, which owns YouTube, and the film's director.

And Garcia claimed that she had a copyright in that brief appearance and

that the producers of the movie had infringed that copyright.

And she wanted an injunction so

the trailer would be removed from the Internet and all of this would stop.

Along the way the copyright office refused to register her performance because they

said it's not their usual procedure to register a performer as a copyright owner.

And Garcia lost at the District Court level then she prevailed on appeal but

then the appeals court granted a rehearing because they were

a lot of concerns about the idea of a rights holder being a performer.

>> Right, and the majority of the panel,

when the ninth circuit heard the course as a whole court, the majority of the panel

held that although she might prevail on the grounds of another legal theory, they

seemed to wonder why she hadn't brought a privacy claim, or something like that.

She had no copyright in the film and could not get an injunction on that basis.

So this is another aspect of how complicated

copyright ownership in film is.

The court held that finding a copyright in each author's work would lead to,

they said, a legal morass.

That's kinda like a tango.

A legal morass in the movie industry.

They refer to the normal practice where filmmakers and

studios use contracts to resolve the issues.

But they didn't seem to be an expressed contract here and

they were reluctant to go beyond normal practice

to find a copyright just the way the copyright office was unwilling to do that.

Also under the copyright law a work is fixed in a tangible

medium of expression by or under the authority of the author.

Garcia didn't have this kind of role in the making of this film.

>> She obviously had very little control.

>> She had very little control.

She wasn't an author so her performance wasn't intended as a stand alone work.

For her to succeed in getting an injunction,

she would of had to show irreparable harm would happen

if they didn't immediately pull the film from YouTube or the trailer from YouTube.

She had shown that she was in a very distressing situation, but

she couldn't prove that she was an author,

who was entitled to an injunction because irreparable harm.

The barrier to get that injunction is high.

And that's because of the First Amendment.

We don't like prior restraint, and

injunctions like that would be considered prior restraint.

So the upshot of this is that Garcia was tricked and she suffered harm.

She ought to get some kind of redress, but

copyright law was not the way to get the remedy that she wanted.

>> I like the fact that the court said a weak

copyright claim cannot justify censorship in the guise of authorship.

Thanks for watching!

Explora nuestro catálogo

Inscríbete de manera gratuita y obtén recomendaciones personalizadas, actualizaciones y ofertas.

Coursera brinda acceso universal a la mejor educación del mundo, al asociarse con las mejores universidades y organizaciones, para ofrecer cursos en línea.

© 2019 Coursera Inc. Todos los derechos reservados.

Descargar en la App Store

Consíguelo en Google Play