tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post1144956543973004506..comments2024-03-28T16:45:51.051+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Garcia v Nakoula, Google, YouTube and 200 Others: Is an actor an author?Verónica RodrÃguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-52691887357858834932012-11-26T22:27:34.554+00:002012-11-26T22:27:34.554+00:00"The complaint alleges invasion of privacy un..."The complaint alleges invasion of privacy under the California Constitution, false light, violation of California's right of publicity statute, violation of California's unfair competition law, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. As against defendant Nakoula and 50 doe defendants allegedly associated with Nakoula, Garcia also alleges fraud and slander. Garcia also sought a temporary restraining order blocking distribution of the film.<br /><br />On September 20, 2012, the California Superior Court for Los Angeles County denied the temporary restraining order, finding a lack of likely success on the merits.<br /><br />According to the docket (search for case BC492358) plaintiff Garcia filed a request for dismissal without prejudice, which was granted on September 25, 2012."<br /><br />http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/garcia-v-nakoula#descriptionAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12083190014669867976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-40830968496423206372012-10-19T11:53:14.064+01:002012-10-19T11:53:14.064+01:00I'm not at all an expert here, but I can't...I'm not at all an expert here, but I can't help thinking that a claim based on publicity right might be tricky for an actor. For instance, there are plenty of films of Del Boy selling counterfeit goods, but that doesn't mean that David Jason approves of the practice, does it?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-12562961325042114212012-10-19T09:45:00.216+01:002012-10-19T09:45:00.216+01:00As for registration, you say "this move is ho...As for registration, you say "this move is hoped to support her claim". My understanding was that an application for registration would be <b>essential</b> before commencing her claim. At least that's what <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/411" rel="nofollow">17 USC 411</a> appears to say.<br /><br />In other words, although registration is not required for subsistence it is a sine qua non for any copyright claim (except for one by an artist claiming "moral rights" of attribution and integrity under 17 USC 106A deriving from the Visual Artists Rights Act). <br /><br />It does not matter if she is refused registration she merely has to have applied.<br /><br />It is interesting that she chose this route rather than some reputational based claim. Do "false light" claims extend that far? Perhaps one of the IPKAT's editors can tell me.Francis Daveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10228026893626221724noreply@blogger.com