Actress to sue anti-Islam filmmaker in federal court: lawyer

Actress to sue anti-Islam filmmaker in federal court: lawyer

news.yahoo.com

An actress suing the producer of an anti-Islam movie that has spawned violent protests across the Muslim world plans to drop her suit and file a new case in federal court over copyright claims, her lawyer said on Monday.

Cindy Lee Garcia, who appeared in the "Innocence of Muslims," filed a lawsuit last week in a state court in Los Angeles against Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, the California man thought to be behind the movie, claiming she was duped into playing a role and her life has been put at risk as a result.

(visit the link for the full news article)

I think I read that the actors and actresses were duped, that there voices were dubbed over?

In my opinion. this was part of a psyop. That this film was meant to incite.

There are some reports that the attacks were planned ahead of time which calls into question how much of a role the movie really played.

Regardless, dont the actors have a right to know how the movie might be used?

news.yahoo.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by gladtobehere


Definately do have a right... if what they said in the Film has been edited to say something else, of course.

And now their live's could be at risk from some religious fanatics!!

Something good can come out of this though.... the Actors could be used as bait to capture any Radicals who may be in the Country.

double post.

I fail to see, how an actor can have a script, study the script, perform the script, then claim they were "duped."

Wow...

Can I sue someone for letting Obama into the Whitehouse?

Originally posted by phantomjack
I fail to see, how an actor can have a script, study the script, perform the script, then claim they were "duped."

Wow...

Can I sue someone for letting Obama into the Whitehouse?

Because they replaced the audio track with other voices.

The script they read was very different from the finished product.

Originally posted by gladtobehere
I think I read that the actors and actresses were duped,...

I have read that claim and I'm not buying it. I think it's more likely that they knew what they were doing and they probably got a bit of money for doing it. But with the huge backlash they are now scared and are trying to save their own lives from the hoards of upset muslims ...

Originally posted by gladtobehere


There are some reports that the attacks were planned ahead of time which calls into question how much of a role the movie really played.

]

Can you give a reference to where this information came from?

Here's some more on this topic... www.abovetopsecret.com...

As it turns out this particular actress can no longer visit her grandchildren because of the movie, which she alleges was supposed to be about ancient warriors of the Middle East.

It's not all cut and dry... and given the cost involves, the duplicitous marketing, and the repeated name changes of the film before being 'released' overseas, and the apparent translation into Arabic after re-dubbing the audio with different voice actors... and the real possibility that a major military industrial complex civilian contractor for DHS and DoD may have been instrumental in all of this... I welcome any official investigation... assuming we'll know the results.

check this out too.... www.abovetopsecret.com... Unless you prefer your reality in the 'black and white' of entertainment media productions.

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.

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.

reply to post by gladtobehere


It's true. Neil Gaiman actually broke the story by posting the actresses letter to him on his website.

journal.neilgaiman.com...

She's since been advised to sue.

reply to post by Maxmars


If that were the case her suit should not be for copy-write but for hostile work environment. I know as a photographer if I take your image it's mine, I can do what ever I want with it. I make sure it says so in the contract.. I can use it however, whenever, and for whatever purpose. You then sign a release ensuring you have no grounds to sue me based off of an conceivable scenario.

Personally... I don't think she's got a case.

reply to post by JohnPhoenix


Depending on the state, you cannot use a person's likeness without their consent. Any consent that the filmmaker could have obtained through fraud would not be valid. So even if the actress did sign some agreement stating they could use her likeness in the film, that agreement is not valid if the film maker induced the actress to sign the agreement through fraudulent misrepresentations or ommissions.

reply to post by Rockpuck


You are missing one of the finer points of the law.

If you take a picture, you own a copyright. A copyright allows you to prevent others from making copies of the picture. The copyright does not give you the affirmative right to use the picture.

If you take a picture of someone and wish to use their likeness, you still need to get their *valid* consent. Generally, having the person sign a release will suffice. However, if you used fraud to get a person to sign a release, the release is not valid.

reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint


No, the contract gives me that right. Copywrite laws protect me from people using my image.
I use a standard contract for instance.. it gives me complete rights as I outlined, and specifically releases me from any conceivable litigation.

(That's the "consent" part. You will never, ever, ever, ever, ever have a professional do videography or photography without some consent form. If you've ever had a professional do your wedding photos or senior photos etc you'd sign a consent form of some kind.)

reply to post by Rockpuck


It releases you only if you did not obtain the person's signature through fraud. Your release will not hold up in court if the other person can show you tricked them into signing it.

This actress claims she was told by the film maker she would be in some film called "Desert Warriors." She claims the original script had nothing to do with Islam. Others seem to corroborate her story. She probably signed any release she signed because she thought she was going to do "Desert Warriors" and not some anti-Islam film. The film makers knew she may not have signed the release if she knew it would be an anti-Islam film.

reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint


...I'd say it's possible she has grounds on a "misrepresentation" clause however it depends entirely on the contract she signed, which we don't have, so everything is speculation. If I took a picture of you and you signed my form and I then used your image in a neo-nazi poster there would be nothing you could do about it.

(the misrepresentation I'm talking about by the way is the dubbing of her voice.)

reply to post by Rockpuck


I does not really matter what the contract says. If they induced her to sign it through fraud, it will not stand up in court. Unless it said in bold face type something to the effect of, "THE FILM YOU ARE MAKING HAS A CONTROVERSIAL SUBJECT MATTER, IN PARTICULAR IT CONTAINS SUBJECT MATTER THAT IS OFFENSIVE TO MANY MUSLIMS AND THE CHARACTER YOU PLAY WILL BE RECITING DIALOGUE THAT IS INSULTING TO MUSLIMS" the agreement will be thrown out of court.

Just because someone signs something, it does not mean you can do whatever you want. I made $10,000 last week because some guy tried to cheat one of my clients. He claimed because my client "signed off" on something, he was entitled to walk away with $30,000 of my client's money. To make a long story short, the other guy had to pay up $30,000 even though my client "signed off" on the other guy's paperwork .

reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint


lol....... right.. you've apparently never been involved in the legality of such a contract. I have. You can think whatever you want to think, and you can try and try to think you're right as much as you're inclined to. It's not easy to void a contract, it's a legally binding document.
And keep in mind this is "Intellectual Property Rights" we are talking about.