“Innocence of Muslims” is a copyrightable “work.” But Garcia has emphatically disclaimed any ownership interest in that work, even as a joint author. See ADD6 (“Garcia doesn’t claim a copyright interest in ‘Innocence of Muslims’ itself”). Instead, Garcia claims—and the panel majority held—that she has a copyright in “her own performance within the film” that is distinct from the copyright in the film as a whole. ADD7. That is incorrect.
Google's brief is here.
Here is one interpretation that the actor owns copyrights:
The court concluded that Garcia’s performance is an independent work of authorship on her part, though she didn’t write the script. I think that’s right, just as a recorded performance of a song is an independent work of authorship on the singer’s part, though the singer didn’t write the song....
The court concluded that Garcia’s performance wasn’t a “work made for hire”under the Copyright Act. If I hire you as an employee to write (or act or sing) something for me, then the work becomes my intellectual property, not yours; but the court concluded that Garcia wasn’t an employee, but was rather a contractor asked to do a particular brief task. “Youssef hired Garcia for a specific task, she only worked for three days and she claims she received no health or other traditional employment benefits.” (The dissent disagreed, and the question on this point is a bit technical; I think the majority was probably right.)
No comments:
Post a Comment