FILM NABI MUHAMMAD YOUTUBE MOVIE
Van Gogh, the AP explains, was the Dutch filmmaker who was killed after making a movie perceived as insulting to Islam. "You're going to be the next Theo van Gogh," Steve Klein, a consultant on the film, told the AP he told Bacile. The AP story also points out that Bacile may have been warned this film would be controversial and perhaps even incite violence. lost a lot of money and a lot of people in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but we're fighting with ideas," he said. And Bacile had not made news until today.īacile repeated what he told the Journal to the AP. It found no property, phone, licenses or court records. NPR's library did not turn up any footprint for Bacile. In another interview, Bacile told The Associated Press that he was a real estate developer and an Israeli Jew, but Israeli authorities told the wire service they have no records of him being a citizen. We've updated this post below to reflect that.)Īccording to the Journal, Bacile raised "$5 million from 100 Jewish donors" and he produced the film using 60 actors and 45 crew members.īacile told the Journal that he made the film to expose "Islam as a hateful religion."
Some of the claims made in the Journal interview have come under question. The Wall Street Journal caught up with Bacile before he went into hiding. The bottom line is that we know very little about "Sam Bacile," the man who says he produced the film and says Sam Bacile is his name. ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens. That's the film that has set the Muslim world on fire, causing protests in Egypt and Libya that led to the death of the U.S. Most Americans knew nothing about Innocence of Muslims. The judges also dismissed Google’s claim that the film is so widely circulated that removing it from YouTube would have no effect.A trailer for the film Innocence of Muslims was uploaded to YouTube in early July.
FILM NABI MUHAMMAD YOUTUBE LICENSE
But even if it’s not, it’s clear evidence that his inclusion of her performance in 'Innocence of Muslims' exceeded the scope of the implied license and was, therefore, an unauthorized, infringing use.” Youssef’s fraud alone is likely enough to void any agreement he had with Garcia. “A clear sign that Youssef exceeded the bounds of any license is that he lied to Garcia in order to secure her participation, and she agreed to perform in reliance on that lie. “The film differs so radically from anything Garcia could have imagined when she was cast that it can’t possibly be authorized by any implied license she granted Youssef,” the judges wrote. The judges said the alleged deception by Youssef nullified Garcia’s consent and validates her copyright argument. Two of the three appeals court judges agreed with Garcia, overturning a lower-court ruling. Garcia, who was paid $500 for her performance, says she believed the film dealt with less inflammatory subject matter. Google, Inc., deals with a copyright claim from Cindy Lee Garcia, who alleges filmmaker Mark Basseley Youssef deceived her about the nature of the film. YouTube, which is owned by Google, previously blocked access to the film in India and Indonesia, complying with local government requests, and voluntarily blocked access in Egypt and Libya.
0 kommentar(er)
