Global Freedom of Expression

Español العربية

Garcia v. Google, Inc.

Closed Expands Expression

Key Details

  • Mode of Expression
    Electronic / Internet-based Communication
  • Date of Decision
    May 18, 2015
  • Outcome
    Law or Action Overturned or Deemed Unconstitutional, Injunction or Order Denied/Vacated
  • Case Number
    786 F.3d 733
  • Region & Country
    United States, North America
  • Judicial Body
    Appellate Court
  • Type of Law
    Civil Law
  • Themes
    Content Regulation / Censorship
  • Tags
    Censorship, Google, Videos, Internet Service Providers, Internet, Websites, Social Media, On-line Expression, Content-Based Restriction, Intellectual Property, Prior Restraints, Right to be forgotten, Copyright

Content Attribution Policy

Global Freedom of Expression is an academic initiative and therefore, we encourage you to share and republish excerpts of our content so long as they are not used for commercial purposes and you respect the following policy:

  • Attribute Columbia Global Freedom of Expression as the source.
  • Link to the original URL of the specific case analysis, publication, update, blog or landing page of the down loadable content you are referencing.

Attribution, copyright, and license information for media used by Global Freedom of Expression is available on our Credits page.

Case Analysis

Case Summary and Outcome

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit en banc dissolved a mandatory injunction granted by a prior decision of a three-judge panel ordering Google to prevent the posting or remove the display of any version of the Innocence of Muslims video that included the plaintiff’s performance from YouTube and any other platforms within its control.

 


Facts

Cindy Lee Garcia was cast in a minor role for a film titled “Desert Warrior.” Though Desert Warrior never materialized, Garcia’s scene was used and dubbed in an anti-Islamic film titled “Innocence of Muslims,” which was uploaded to YouTube.com. After the film aired on Egyptian television, protests arose worldwide and Garcia began receiving death threats. She asked Google to remove the video from YouTube by filing five takedown notices under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

When Google declined to comply, Garcia filed for a temporary restraining order seeking removal of the film from YouTube, claiming that the posting of the video infringed her copyrights in her performance. The district court in Los Angeles treated the application as a motion for preliminary injunction and denied it.

Garcia appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and the panel majority reversed and granted Garcia’s preliminary injunction. The panel issued a takedown order instructing Google to remove all copies of the Innocence of Muslims video from YouTube and other platforms within its control. The panel later amended the order to allow YouTube to post any version of the film that did not include Garcia’s performance.

Google requested a rehearing en banc and the Ninth Circuit granted it. The Court of Appeals en banc concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Garcia’s request for the preliminary injunction, and as a consequence, the mandatory injunction against Google was unjustified and should be dissolved.


Decision Overview

McKeown, M., delivered the opinion of the Ninth Circuit en banc. The majority of the court held that the injunction was unwarranted and incorrect as a matter of law and was a prior restraint that infringed upon Google’s First Amendment rights. “A weak copyright claim cannot justify censorship in the guise of authorship.”

The Court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Garcia’s motion for a preliminary injunction under the copyright laws because neither the law nor the facts favored her claim.  The Court observed that, unfortunately for Garcia, the “right to be forgotten” is not recognized in the United States as it is in Europe.

The en banc Court found that the mandatory injunction censored and suppressed a politically significant film based upon a dubious and unprecedented theory of copyright. The Ninth Circuit determined that the three-judge panel’s takedown order of a film of substantial interest to the public is a classic prior restraint of speech and that prior restraints pose the most serious and least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights. Garcia could not overcome the historically heavy presumption against such restraints with a thin copyright claim to a five-second performance.

The Court of Appeals dissolved the injunction and affirmed the district court’s decision.

 


Decision Direction

Quick Info

Decision Direction indicates whether the decision expands or contracts expression based on an analysis of the case.

Expands Expression

By dissolving a previous injunction by the three-judge panel that had ordered Google to remove or prevent future uploads of any version of the Innocence of Muslims video that included Garcia’s performance, the Court of Appeals en banc determined that the injunction censored and suppressed a controversial film and that it was a prior restraint that infringed upon the First Amendment. The Ninth Circuit acknowledged that the takedown order was unwarranted and incorrect as a matter of law and it could not be justified in light of the First Amendment values at stake.

 

 

Global Perspective

Quick Info

Global Perspective demonstrates how the court’s decision was influenced by standards from one or many regions.

Table of Authorities

Related International and/or regional laws

  • ECJ, Google Spain v. Agencia Española de Protección de Datos (AEPD), C-131/12 (2014)

National standards, law or jurisprudence

  • U.S., Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186 (2003)
  • U.S., Alexander v. United States, 509 U.S. 544 (1993)
  • U.S., Hunt v. NBC, 872 F.2d 289 (9th Cir. 1989)

Case Significance

Quick Info

Case significance refers to how influential the case is and how its significance changes over time.

The decision establishes a binding or persuasive precedent within its jurisdiction.

By dissolving a previous injunction issued by the Court’s three-judge panel that had ordered Google to remove and prevent future uploads of the Innocence of Muslims video that included Garcia’s performance, the Court of Appeals en banc determined that the takedown order was unwarranted and incorrect as a matter of law. The mandatory injunction censored and suppressed a controversial film. Such censorship amounts to a prior restraint that infringed upon Google’s First Amendment rights. Neither the law nor the facts compelled the suppression of the film.

Official Case Documents

Official Case Documents:


Amicus Briefs and Other Legal Authorities

  • Brief of Amici Curiae Professors of Intellectual Property Law in Support of Google, Inc. and YouTube, LLC (Nov. 25, 2014).

    http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2014/11/26/12-57302%20Amicus%20by%20Professors.pdf
  • Brief of Amicus Curiae Netflix, Inc. In Support of Defendants-Appellees (Nov. 25, 2014).

    http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2014/11/25/12-57302%20Amicus%20by%20Netflix.pdf
  • Brief of Volunteer Lawyers for the Arts, Inc. As Amicus Curiae In Support of Defendants-Appelees (Nov. 25, 2014).

    http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2014/11/25/12-57302%20Amicus%20by%20Volunteer%20Lawyers.pdf
  • Brief of Amici Curiae Electronic Frontier Foundation et al. In Support of Defendants-Appellees (Nov. 25, 2014).

    http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2014/11/25/12-57302%20Amicus%20by%20EFF.pdf
  • Brief Amicus Curiae of the Computer & Communications Industry Association In Support of Google and YouTube Urging Reversal En Banc (Nov. 25, 2014).

    http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2014/11/25/12-57302%20Amicus%20by%20Computer%20Industry.pdf
  • Brief of Amici Curiae Screen Actors Guild et al. In Support of Appellant Cindy Lee Garcia (Dic. 5, 2014).

    http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2014/12/09/12-57302%20Amicus%20by%20SAG.pdf
  • Brief of Amicus Curiae International Documentary Association et al. In Support of Appellees Google, Inc. and YouTube, LLC on Rehearing en Banc (Nov. 25, 2014).

    http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2014/11/26/12-57302%20Amicus%20by%20International%20Documentary%20Ass%27n.pdf
  • En Banc Brief of Public Citizen as Amicus Curiae In Support of Neither Party

    http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2014/11/25/12-57302%20Amicus%20by%20Public%20Citizen.pdf
  • Brief of Adobe Systems Inc. et al. as Amici Curiae In Support of Google and YouTube on Rehearing en Banc (Nov. 25, 2014).

    http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2014/11/26/12-57302%20Amicus%20by%20Adobe.pdf

  • Reports, Analysis, and News Articles:


    Have comments?

    Let us know if you notice errors or if the case analysis needs revision.

    Send Feedback