What exact IS Google's DMCA policy?

[Jerry Witt (mcfilms)]

I'm sure most of you are familiar with the "Innocence of Muslims" 14 minute film that has caused a stir in the Muslim world. I came across this article today:
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/judge-rejects-actress-request-pull-372418

It seems Google actually sent attorneys to argue that the actress who was duped into being in the movie had no rights to even have a HEARING if the movie should be taken off YouTube.

Now, I'm for free speech as much as anyone. However I find it ironic that Google will yank anyone's video off YouTube with a simple DMCA claim and yet showed up in court to argue that this video didn't violate her right to privacy. If I were representing her I'd be looking into filing a DMCA complaint against it right now.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

I'm sure most of you are familiar with the "Innocence of Muslims" 14 minute film that has caused a stir in the Muslim world. I came across this article today:
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/judge-rejects-actress-request-pull-372418

It seems Google actually sent attorneys to argue that the actress who was duped into being in the movie had no rights to even have a HEARING if the movie should be taken off YouTube.

Now, I'm for free speech as much as anyone. However I find it ironic that Google will yank anyone's video off YouTube with a simple DMCA claim and yet showed up in court to argue that this video didn't violate her right to privacy. If I were representing her I'd be looking into filing a DMCA complaint against it right now.

The problem here is that if she files the takedown, she doesn't own it, which opens hers up to perjury issues, and as we all know from experience, the owner can simply file a counterclaim and have it restored.. If the makers of the film had any sense at all ( which I'm doubting) they would voluntarily remove it..I'm sure at this point the video is happily making it's way thru the 1000's of bit-torrent sites out there anyway..

[Jerry Witt (mcfilms)]

Yes I thought about that. I guess the filmmaker got a release. But if he didn't (and he seems pretty scattered) maybe she could ague that she never released the copyright she holds on her likeness. Bah. That's a stretch. However Google does say this: "If a video contains your personal information without consent, including your image, name or national identification number, please contact us through our Privacy Complaint Process." She could argue that she did not give consent to be in THAT film.

I just feel sorry for this actress. She claims she has received death threats and cannot see her grandchildren.

Anyway, if the filmmaker was so concerned about the repercussions of what he did, HE would have taken it down himself.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

Good point about the name/likeness in that case yes she should proceed, and at the very least this would force the "owner" to produce the model release...if there is one..

[Moe Hacken]

Google/YouTube is being inconsistent with their stated guidelines. Content that incites violence is supposed to be a no-no. What standard of proof do they need? It's clear there's absolutely no value to the content.

I'm not sure if they're being chicken or playing chicken. Either way, they should do what they say and say what they do:

We encourage free speech and defend everyone's right to express unpopular points of view. But we don't permit hate speech (speech which attacks or demeans a group based on race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, veteran status, and sexual orientation/gender identity).

Source: http://www.youtube.com/t/community_guidelines

[SoylentGreen]

It's always about the money.

How many hits has the video gotten..?  Nearly 5 million?
That's a lot of hits... and advertizing revenue for YouTube.

I also think that people in the acting field should have clauses in their contracts that their appearance can't be edited to appear "obscene, defamatory", etc.
Even stock image companies have such clauses. A hard lesson in this case.

S.G.

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

Very good points SG and I agree.  This is an interesting thread.

It's always about the money.

How many hits has the video gotten..?  Nearly 5 million?
That's a lot of hits... and advertizing revenue for YouTube.

I also think that people in the acting field should have clauses in their contracts that their appearance can't be edited to appear "obscene, defamatory", etc.
Even stock image companies have such clauses. A hard lesson in this case.

S.G.

[Oscar Michelen]

I would be very surprised if the filmmaker did not get a release. If the release is unlimited (as most are) then it doesn't matter that they altered the "spin" of it or overdubbed her.   Believe me, most young actors and actresses are not going to haggle over terminology in a release. They are just excited to be paid for being in a film. Limiting it by saying it can be edited to be discriminatory or obscene is a good idea, but who defines what is discriminatory or obscene? And it would mean having to go to court to establish they violated the limits of your release. When a person is obviously acting into a camera, it would be hard for anyone to honor a DMCA notice saying "I didn't give them the right to use my image in this fashion." 

[Jerry Witt (mcfilms)]

Well the word on the street is now that the filmmaker did NOT get a release.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/innocence-of-muslims-lawsuit-cindy-lee-garcia-374470

Additionally it seems that Ms Garcia's attorney is following a course of action that I suggested when I first posted the article. Still, as that article points out, her claim is a long shot. But it should make for some interesting maneuvering.

I just find it ironic that Google loves the DMCA process until it gets in the way of what they want. And then they don't love it so much.