posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 04:51 PM
Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
It really depends on the contract she signed. I'd like to see it. If there were a clause saying the company had rights to her likeness, or something
to that effect, she hasn't got a case
I've heard this line of reasoning before, and I can see the validity in terms of the ability for any production company to be free to manipulate the
final product. However, when it comes to putting your employees (actors) at risk for a performance that was edited to change it's meaning and
context, there must be some consequence that has to be accounted for.
I know that the latest casual investigations appear to have demonstrated an unusual connection between the media company, it's responsible owner (the
pseudonym guy), and what may be a heavily defense-oriented government contracting company. There is not much to dissuade me from noting a potential
conflict of interest between what was filmed and recorded and the extraordinarily provocative and inflammatory film that was finally released.
This might all be "contract" academic .... but people died... riots and protests are still ongoing; and the "intellectual product" is clearly
being used to fan the flames of a fire we don't need flaring up.
Of course, there are those who will benefit greatly in one way or another over this. I have to ask, were they connected to it? Any suit brought will
be worthy of scrutiny... but the fact that it moved from a civil to a federal case may be harbinger of the next phase of the same plan.