14 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7841, 2014 Daily Journal D.A.R. 9166
© 2014 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. / XXX
Garcia v. Google, Inc., --- F.3d ---- (2014)
14 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7841, 2014 Daily Journal D.A.R. 9166
2014 WL 3377343
United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.
Cindy Lee GARCIA, Plaintiff–Appellant,
v.
GOOGLE, INC., a Delaware Corporation; Youtube, LLC, a California limited liability company, Defendants–Appellees,
and
Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, an individual, aka Sam Bacile; Mark Basseley Youssef; Abanob Basseley Nakoula; Matthew Nekola; Ahmed Hamdy; Amal Nada; Daniel K. Caresman; Kritbag Difrat; Sobhi Bushra; Robert Bacily; Nicola Bacily; Thomas J. Tanas; Erwin Salameh; Yousseff M. Basseley; Malid Ahlawi, Defendants.
No. 12–57302. | Argued and Submitted June 26, 2013. | Filed Feb. 26, 2014. | Amended July 11, 2014.
Synopsis
Background: Actress who received death threats due to her performance for unreleased film that was modified and incorporated into anti-Islamic video uploaded to video-hosting website sued website, website’s owner, and film’s producers, alleging that posting of video infringed her copyright in her performance. Actress applied for temporary restraining order. Treating application as motion for preliminary injunction, the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Michael W. Fitzgerald, J., denied motion. Actress appealed.
Holdings: SHThe Court of Appeals, Kozinski, Chief Judge, held that:SH
[1] actress’s performance satisfied minimum requirements for performance to be copyrightable;
[2] actress established that she was likely to prevail on merits of claim that she had copyright interest in her performance within film;
[3] actress established likelihood of success on merits of claim that producer exceeded scope of her non-exclusive, implied license;
[4] actress established irreparable harm; and
[5] balance of equities favored actress.
Reversed and remanded.
N.R. Smith, Circuit Judge, filed a dissenting opinion.
Opinion, 743 F.3d 1258, amended and superseded.
West Headnotes (21)
[1] / Federal CourtsPreliminary Injunction; Temporary Restraining Order
Court of Appeals reviews denial of preliminary injunction for abuse of discretion, but legal premises underlying a preliminary injunction are reviewed de novo.
Cases that cite this headnote
[2] / Injunction
Grounds in General; Multiple Factors
In granting or denying preliminary injunction, district court must consider four factors: plaintiff’s likely success on the merits, the likelihood that irreparable harm will result if an injunction does not issue, the balance of equities, and the public interest.
Cases that cite this headnote
[3] / Copyrights and Intellectual Property
Joint Works; Contributions to Collective Works
Work claimed to be protected by copyright is joint work only if the authors involved in its creation intend that it be so. 17 U.S.C.A. § 101.
Cases that cite this headnote
[4] / Copyrights and Intellectual Property
Originality of Work; Creativity
Actor’s performance, when fixed, is copyrightable if it evinces some minimal degree of creativity, no matter how crude, humble, or obvious it might be, regardless of whether actor speaks, is dubbed over, or performs without any words. 17 U.S.C.A. § 102(a)(4).
Cases that cite this headnote
[5] / Copyrights and Intellectual Property
Originality of Work; Creativity
Actress’s performance incorporated into film evinced at least minimal degree of creativity, and thus satisfied minimum requirements for performance to be copyrightable. 17 U.S.C.A. § 102(a)(4).
Cases that cite this headnote
[6] / Copyrights and Intellectual Property
Ownership
Creator of copyrightable artistic expression is an “author.”
Cases that cite this headnote
[7] / Copyrights and Intellectual Property
Dramatic Works, Pantomimes, and Choreographic Works
Copyrights and Intellectual Property
Compilations and Derivative Works; Copies and Reproductions
A screenplay is a copyrightable creative work and a film is a derivative work of the screenplay on which it is based. 17 U.S.C.A. § 101.
Cases that cite this headnote
[8] / Copyrights and Intellectual Property
Compilations and Derivative Works; Copies and Reproductions
Infringing derivative work is not entitled to copyright protection. 17 U.S.C.A. § 103(a).
Cases that cite this headnote
[9] / Copyrights and Intellectual Property
Preliminary Injunction
In seeking preliminary injunction requiring owner of video-hosting website to remove from website anti-Islamic video into which her performance recorded for different film was incorporated, actress established that she was likely to prevail on merits of claim that she had copyright interest in her performance within film. 17 U.S.C.A. §§ 102(a)(4), 103(b).
Cases that cite this headnote
[10] / Copyrights and Intellectual Property
Works Made for Hire
Under copyright statute, rights to actress’s performance in film did not vest in film’s producer pursuant to work for hire doctrine, where producer hired actress for specific task and actress worked only for three days and did not receive traditional employment benefits, such that actress did not qualify as traditional employee, and producer did not obtain written agreement transferring actress’s interests. 17 U.S.C.A. §§ 101, 201(b).
Cases that cite this headnote
[11] / Copyrights and Intellectual Property
Works Made for Hire
As used in work for hire doctrine, addressing whether artist’s copyright interests in performance vest in purported employer, term “employee” refers to a hired party in a conventional employment relationship, and the question of employment is analyzed under traditional principles of agency. 17 U.S.C.A. §§ 101, 201(b).
Cases that cite this headnote
[12] / Copyrights and Intellectual Property
Licenses in General
Nonexclusive copyright license may be implied from conduct, and arises where plaintiff creates a work at defendant’s request and hands it over, intending that defendant copy and distribute it.
Cases that cite this headnote
[13] / Copyrights and Intellectual Property
Licenses in General
Actress granted producer of film an implied, nonexclusive copyright license for her performance, where actress auditioned for role in particular film, was paid for her performance, and believed that producer would eventually release film.
Cases that cite this headnote
[14] / Copyrights and Intellectual Property
Preliminary Injunction
In seeking preliminary injunction requiring owner of video-hosting website to remove from website anti-Islamic video into which her performance recorded for different film was incorporated, actress established likelihood of success on merits of claim that producer exceeded scope of non-exclusive, implied license granted by actress; video differed radically from Arabian adventure film in which actress was told her performance would appear, and actress agreed to perform in reliance upon producer’s lies that he told to secure her participation.
Cases that cite this headnote
[15] / Copyrights and Intellectual Property
Preliminary Injunction
Irreparable harm supporting preliminary injunction is not presumed in copyright infringement cases.
Cases that cite this headnote
[16] / Copyrights and Intellectual Property
Preliminary Injunction
Actress whose performance intended for different film was incorporated into anti-Islamic video uploaded to video-sharing website was not dilatory in seeking preliminary injunction to have video removed from website, as would weigh against finding of irreparable harm, even though actress did not bring action until several months after video was uploaded; actress took legal action as soon as video received worldwide attention and she began receiving death threats, and need for immediate action did not arise until actress was threatened.
Cases that cite this headnote
[17] / Copyrights and Intellectual Property
Preliminary Injunction
Actress whose performance intended for different film was incorporated into anti-Islamic video uploaded to video-sharing website established irreparable harm in seeking preliminary injunction requiring website owner to remove video from website, given that death threats against her were ongoing and serious, she had been forced to take significant security precautions when traveling, and had moved to new home and relocated her business as safety measure, and harm alleged was causally related to alleged infringement of her claimed copyright interest in her performance, in that film producer’s unauthorized inclusion of performance in video led to threats against actress and removing video from website would help disassociate her from film’s anti-Islamic message.
Cases that cite this headnote
[18] / Injunction
Irreparable Injury
Past injuries are not sufficient to establish irreparable harm for purposes of preliminary injunction.
Cases that cite this headnote
[19] / Injunction
Irreparable Injury
Beyond establishing that she faces an imminent harm, plaintiff seeking preliminary injunction must show a sufficient causal connection between that harm and the conduct she seeks to enjoin, such that the injunction would effectively curb the risk of injury.
Cases that cite this headnote
[20] / Copyrights and Intellectual Property
Preliminary Injunction
Balance of equities, and, to the extent that it was implicated, the public interest, favored actress who sought preliminary injunction to require owner of video-hosting website to remove from website anti-Islamic video containing performance that actress had given for inclusion in different film, notwithstanding owner’s contention that there was overwhelming public interest in continued hosting of video on website; actress demonstrated likelihood of success on her claim that video infringed her copyright in her performance, and that performance was used in a way that she found abhorrent and subjected her to threats of physical harm and death.
Cases that cite this headnote
[21] / Constitutional Law
Aliens, Rights Of
First Amendment free speech clause does not protect copyright infringement. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 1.
Cases that cite this headnote
Attorneys and Law Firms
M. Cris Armenta (argued), The Armenta Law Firm APC, Los Angeles, CA and Credence Sol, Chauvigng, France, for Plaintiff–Appellant.
Timothy L. Alger (argued) and Sunita Bali, Perkins Coie LLP, Palo Alto, CA, for Defendants–Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Michael W. Fitzgerald, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. 2:12–cv–08315–MWF–VBK.
Before ALEX KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, RONALD M. GOULD and N. RANDY SMITH, Circuit Judges.
ORDER AND AMENDED OPINION
KOZINSKI, Chief Judge:
ORDER
*1 The opinion and dissent filed February 26, 2014, and reported at 743 F.3d 1258, are amended to conform to the attached Amended Opinion and Amended Dissent, 12–57302. No further petitions for rehearing will be entertained. The petition for rehearing en banc remains pending.
OPINION
While answering a casting call for a low-budget amateur film doesn’t often lead to stardom, it also rarely turns an aspiring actress into the subject of a fatwa. But that’s exactly what happened to Cindy Lee Garcia when she agreed to act in a film with the working title “Desert Warrior.”
The film’s writer and producer, Mark Basseley Youssef—who also goes by the names Nakoula Basseley Nakoula and Sam Bacile—cast Garcia in a minor role. Garcia was given the four pages of the script in which her character appeared and paid approximately $500 for three and a half days of filming. “Desert Warrior” never materialized. Instead, Garcia’s scene was used in an anti-Islamic film titled “Innocence of Muslims.” Garcia first saw “Innocence of Muslims” after it was uploaded to YouTube.com and she discovered that her brief performance had been partially dubbed over so that she appeared to be asking, “Is your Mohammed a child molester?”
These, of course, are fighting words to many faithful Muslims and, after the film aired on Egyptian television, there were protests that generated worldwide news coverage. An Egyptian cleric issued a fatwa, calling for the killing of everyone involved with the film, and Garcia soon began receiving death threats. She responded by taking a number of security precautions and asking that Google remove the video from YouTube.
In all, Garcia filed eight takedown notices under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. See generally 17 U.S.C. § 512. When Google resisted, she supplied substantive explanations as to why the film should be taken down. Google still refused to act, so Garcia applied for a temporary restraining order seeking removal of the film from YouTube, claiming that the posting of the video infringed her copyright in her performance.1 The district court treated the application as a motion for a preliminary injunction, and denied it because Garcia had delayed in bringing the action, had failed to demonstrate “that the requested preliminary relief would prevent any alleged harm” and was unlikely to succeed on the merits because she’d granted Youssef an implied license to use her performance in the film.
I. Discussion
[1] [2] While we review the denial of a preliminary injunction for abuse of discretion, Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir.2011), the “legal premises underlying a preliminary injunction” are reviewed de novo. A & M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 284 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir.2002). In granting or denying a preliminary injunction, the district court must consider four factors: a plaintiff’s likely success on the merits, the likelihood that irreparable harm will result if an injunction doesn’t issue, the balance of equities and the public interest. Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7, 20, 129 S.Ct. 365, 172 L.Ed.2d 249 (2008). The district court found against Garcia on the first two factors and didn’t consider the last two.2
A. Likelihood of Success on the Merits
*2 Garcia doesn’t claim a copyright interest in “Innocence of Muslims” itself; far from it. Instead, she claims that her performance within the film is independently copyrightable and that she retained an interest in that copyright. To succeed on this claim, Garcia must prove not only that she likely has an independent interest in her performance but that Youssef doesn’t own any such interest as a work for hire and that he doesn’t have an implied license to use her performance.
1. An Independent Copyright Interest
[3] A film is typically conceived of as “a joint work consisting of a number of contributions by different ‘authors.’ “ 1 Melville B. Nimmer & David Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright § 6.05 at 6–14 (1990). Garcia argues that she never intended her performance to be part of a joint work, and under our precedent she doesn’t qualify as a joint author. See Aalmuhammed v. Lee, 202 F.3d 1227, 1231–36 (9th Cir .2000). The dissent claims that “Garcia’s interest in her acting performance may best be analyzed as a joint work with Youssef.” Dissent 25 n. 3. But work is joint only if the authors involved in its creation intend that it be so. See 17 U.S.C. § 101. Garcia expressly disclaims such intent and there is no evidence that Youssef intended to create a joint work. We thus have no basis for finding a joint intent on this record.