Actress Cindy Lee Garcia sues over Innocence of Muslims

[eppur_se_muova]

Source: BBC

A US actress who appeared in the anti-Islam film that sparked protests across the Muslim world is suing the film's suspected director.

Cindy Lee Garcia accused Nakoula Basseley Nakoula of duping her into a "hateful" film that she was led to believe was a desert adventure movie.

She is also asking a judge to order YouTube to remove the film.

A clip dubbed into Arabic provoked widespread anger for its mocking portrayal of the Prophet Muhammad.


Read more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19657880

---

Freedom of Speech does not protect you from being sued for irresponsible speech. You still can't falsely shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater without expecting to face the consequences.

[Ash_F]

1. Sounds like the director is an all-around dick. /nt

[slackmaster]

2. She should have had herself billed as Georgina Spelvin

It's traditional.

[Llewlladdwr]

3. Except that this situation is in no way like shouting "fire" in a crowded theater.

Unless you're assuming that Muslims can ONLY react to criticism of Islam with violence. Which is obviously not the case. Logically then, the people responsible for the current violence are the ones who...commited the violence.

[eppur_se_muova]

4. Actually, both are examples of deliberate, malicious acts resulting in endangerment.

You only need to assume that an action is LIKELY lead to a potentially harmful situation to know that it would be a really bad idea. Courts are there to fine-tune the meanings of "likely" and "harmful", as always.

Responsibility is not a conserved quantity. The people who commited the violence are guilty of commiting violence. The person who provoked the violence is guilty of provoking violence. There is more than enough guilt and stupidity to go around.

In this case, the film served no purpose other than deliberate insult and provocation. And the plaintiff is also suing over harm to her reputation, for which she would have a valid case even if there had been no violence at all.

The key word (often omitted) in the Holmes quote is FALSELY. Nothing culpable about YFIACT if the theater really is on fire, or you mistakenly believe it is on fire. The producer/director of this film was just making up shit, kicking over beehives just to watch what happened. Ultimately, it's the beekeepers who will decide if that's excusable for the sake of ... um, whatever it was he was trying to prove.

[msongs]

5. so if I deem this repsonse as offensive, you will support me if I riot? It's just opinion nt

[eppur_se_muova]

6. No, I would not support you, which is not the point, as you well know.

Black's Law Dictionary defines recklessness in American law as "Conduct whereby the actor does not desire harmful consequence but...foresees the possibility and consciously takes the risk," or alternatively as "a state of mind in which a person does not care about the consequences of his or her actions." Black's Law dictionary 1053 (Bryan A. Garner ed., 8th ed. abr. 2005). In American courts, like English courts, a wrongdoer is found guilty of recklessness based upon the subjective test rule, where the accused must have had the same reasonable knowledge or ability to know the circumstances surrounding the incident in order to be found guilty of recklessness.

In American tort law, recklessness of the tortfeasor can cause the Plaintiff to be entitled to punitive damages. Although there is no difference in the quantity of punitive damages awarded for recklessness instead of malice (that is, a plaintiff does not get more punitive damages for establishing malice than he would for establishing recklessness), plaintiffs may still desire to prove maliciousness because, in American bankruptcy law, debts incurred through willful and malicious injuries cannot be discharged in bankruptcy[3], but debts incurred through recklessness can.[4]

Are you defending this filmmaker against the charge of recklessness ? On what basis ? He certainly had a good idea what the consequences could be. Precipitation of an international crisis was easy to predict, and quite likely something he sought.

Are you certain enough of your argument to foresee the outcome of this lawsuit ? Given that he apparently LIED to the people who appeared in the film, how do you think the court will evaluate his motives ? Does "artistic merit" justify the deception that went into the making of this film ? Do you really think his motives were **innocent** ?

[magical thyme]

17. it wasn't "quite likely" something he sought

He stated outright he "knew" what the likely result would be and he *intended* to show, to the world, Islam for "the cancer that it is."

No question there. He said it. His words.

[eppur_se_muova]

25. I sit corrected. Thank you.

You have evidently read some quote which I did not see.

[playingwithplato]

45. Not sure about this...

Offense, or actions resulting from it, to a piece of art is not covered in 'reckless' or 'malicious' law. I can make a film that has a guy peeing on a crucifix for 90 minutes straight. The illegal actions of those who are offended by my film precisely because of its content, are not protected by the law. If I state that I KNOW someone will be offended by what I deem to me the worst religion around today, this is completely different that stating, or having proved, that my intention, in my expressive piece, is to hurt another. This being said, many artist claim to seek to offend the rational minds, or sensibilities, of their audience.

The very purpose of shouting fire in a theater may be to CAUSE mayhem, or harm to others. You have to prove intent.

This clownshoe making a film to express his disgust with the history of Mohammed, or contemporary Islam practice by some, and publicly acknowledging that he can anticipate the audience's reaction to it does not prove his intent to harm nor does it make him in the least bit culpable in the violence that ensued.

This reminds me of when Mel Gibson made Passion of the Christ and it was later revealed his intent was to stir up a bunch of Christians to storm the Israeli embassy.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

19. None of the US laws have long arm status

[muriel_volestrangler]

8. Do you assume that people in a theater ONLY panic, dangerously, when they hear 'fire'?

Obviously that is not the case. But people know it's a possible reaction. And the film-makers knew that riots were a possible reaction to extreme insults of Muhammed.

[patrice]

12. Would there be such a thing as advertising if your position was reasonable? No. The reason there is

advertising is because it is completely reasonable to assume that target recipients can react in a variety of ways, some of which will be to act in the manner desired by the advertiser.

[eppur_se_muova]

24. Yes, obviously, since advertising exists and my position is reasonable.

PROFESSIONAL DRIVER ON CLOSED COURSE. DO NOT IMITATE.

PROFESSIONAL STUNT PERSON. DO NOT IMITATE.

DEMONSTRATION ONLY. DO NOT IMITATE.

Easy to guess where those came from -- someone tried to imitate something they saw in a commercial (say, driving the featured car in a skidding turn, as in the commercial), suffered an accident, and sued the advertiser, possibly successfully. Lawyers advised advertisers to include at least a minimal disclaimer in their commercials so that they could say "we told them not to do that". Advertisers' ass now covered -- at least on that topic.

False, misleading, harmful commercials can and do lead to civil cases.

[Quantess]

7. I feel bad for the actors.

It sounds like they had no idea what the film was going to be about. Their lives are in danger now.

[oberliner]

9. The people in the theater can't help but hear you shout fire

No one is forced to watch this stupid YouTube video.

In fact, most of the rioters/protesters most likely haven't.

[eppur_se_muova]

26. Other people are certainly harmed ...

such as the actress, in this case, who was "framed" as a Muslim-basher by the filmmaker's chicanery. She will spend the rest of her life trying to live this down, and it's not her fault.

[oberliner]

30. She was apparently duped

I think that is a separate issue. Overdubbing new dialogue and misrepresenting the film is a problem.

However, just making a film like this at all is a different issue.

[eppur_se_muova]

33. Well, yes, the article was about these "separate issues", though my opinions were broader.

People seem to feel that the protection of free speech is absolute.

Whereas:

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
283 U.S. 697
Near v. Minnesota
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA
No. 91 Argued: January 30, 1931 --- Decided: June 1, 1931

...

3. Liberty of the press is not an absolute right, and the State may punish its abuse. P. 708.


http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Near_v._Minnesota

[oberliner]

38. Understood - but I was addressing the "fire in a crowded theatre" reference

I don't think that analogy is apt in this case.

[cali]

10. that sorry film is protected speech

In fact, it's almost a textbook case. Yes, it's vile. Yes, it's hateful and yes, it's protected.

[eppur_se_muova]

31. Protected speech means you cannot be enjoined from expressing it.

You can, however, be punished after you say it. This is what Near vs Minnesota was all about.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
283 U.S. 697
Near v. Minnesota
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA
No. 91 Argued: January 30, 1931 --- Decided: June 1, 1931
1. A Minnesota statute declares that one who engages "in the business of regularly and customarily producing, publishing," etc., "a malicious, scandalous and defamatory newspaper, magazine or other periodical," is guilty of a nuisance, and authorizes suits, in the name of the State, in which such periodicals may be abated and their publishers enjoined from future violations. In such a suit, malice may be inferred from the fact of publication. The defendant is permitted to prove, as a defense, that his publications were true and published "with good motives and for justifiable ends." Disobedience of an injunction is punishable as a contempt. Held unconstitutional, as applied to publications charging neglect of duty and corruption upon the part of law-enforcing officers of the State. Pp. 704, 709, 712, 722.

2. Liberty of the press is within the liberty safeguarded by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from invasion by state action. P. 707.

3. Liberty of the press is not an absolute right, and the State may punish its abuse. P. 708.


http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Near_v._Minnesota

[cali]

34. good luck with that in this case.

[Javaman]

39. Actually, someone down thread pointed out something pretty interesting...

First off, I have worked in the film industry for many years and had to deal with various production companies of one kind or another over that time (including my own) and as standard practice all actors and players have to sign a release form.

I posted them here...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=238302

That said, Bluenorthwest made a good point of basically saying, if the producer used a fake name on the release form, then the actor might have a case of misrepresentation.

So this whole thing and a case against the producer/director may come down to whether or not he falsified his name on a legal doc.

But as I wrote in another post in this thread, most low budget film companies rarely own little more than their production name. And if he filed his production company as an LLC, she won't get anything.

I think her best bet is a civil lawsuit.

[CJCRANE]

11. She is not suing for "irresponsible speech".

"Ms Garcia alleged fraud, slander and intentional infliction of emotional distress."

The nature of the film was misrespresented to her, so she was persuaded to take part in the movie by fraudulent means. That's the issue here.

[Javaman]

16. If she signed a release form, no matter what she claims, it won't hold water. read below...

I posted the two standard release forme: General and model/talent.

[CJCRANE]

18. That seems pretty watertight but...

I have a feeling that if someone hires actors for a rom com (for example) then re-edits it and re-dubs it and releases it as a porn film then he/she may be liable to be sued for fraud/slander.

I'm just a layman but I have a feeling that there is a concept in law of unreasonable contracts being void or open to dispute, but I'll leave that to the legal experts to verify (or not).

[Javaman]

20. Over the years, I have seen attempts to break a contract...

claim misrepresentation, etc and all fail because of the release form.

Failure to read and understand what amounts to a boilerplate form that is, as you say "watertight", is not the failure of the producers/directors, it's the failure of the artist.

And it also clearly states in the release forms the producers/directors can use the artists images, voice, etc in basically anyway shape or form.

If the case is allowed to go forward, there will be a lot of grumbling and behind the scenes pissed off people in the film industry.

What will more than likely happen is this: there will be a civil lawsuit launched, it won't go to trial and will be settled out of court. The actor, whether she feels she was actually "misrepresented" or not, will then make sure she has a good agent and exploit her being "deceived" by appearing far and wide on TV, etc.

I don't blame her, she may actually be very pissed, but the reality is: this was a nothing movie that didn't really appear on anyones radar until recent events caused it to be infamous. And as such, I would do the same thing, exploit the stupidity of the producer/director for her own benefit.

And I predict various copy cat type movies, either satire, straight up comedy or more crazy ass religious stupidity as this one was, will appear on the radar. aka youtube or "christian" film festivals.

[Bradical79]

49. Have you ever seen anything this blatant though?

Not only did the director intentionally misrepresent what the film was and re-edit their lines as hate speech, but he also used a fake name as a convicted criminal who was specifically barred from misrepresenting himself in such a manner by the courts. I would think his previous conviction and violating his parole in the way he went about making and promoting this movie would give her a stronger case than most.

[Javaman]

51. Oh yeah, I have. I have worked on...

Last edited Fri Sep 21, 2012, 09:34 AM - Edit history (1)

In my primordial days as a camera assistant, prior to getting into the union, some truly questionable productions. I needed to, to get credits and work experience under my belt.

Where should I start? Perhaps on the mafia run murder/mystery or the fly by night vampire movie with the speed freak director? Or the countless music videos supplying the "talent" with coke and meth?

Show me in any of my posts where I argued about the content of the film? You can't. I am simply talking about the legality of misrepresenting himself on legal forms.

The actor signed a release form, unless she can prove he fraudulently used a fake name, then the burden falls on the state to see if he filed illegal documents when setting up his LLC for his production company.

As for violating his parole, that's not for me to decide, but it does appear, given this day in age, that he did so, by using a computer. A 50,000 dollar movie these days is more than likely edited via adobe premier or apples final cut pro. Which are computer based editing programs. That is a violation of his parole.

However, nothing says he did the actual editing and not knowing the details of his parole restrictions, he may still be in violation with something that used a computer in some regard.

One can still promote and make movies without computers, it's very difficult these days to do that, but not entirely impossible.

[ehrnst]

57. Not just the nature of the film, but the full script, and the genre of the film.

As I've said before - if she had not been told it was a porn film, and her day job as a public school teacher was put in jeopardy because of it, she'd have a very good case.

This goes way, way beyond editing on a new ending, or reworking a story - this was blatant deceit on the part of the producer as to the nature of the project - which was intended to provoke violence on an international scale, and could potentially endanger the safety of all involved.

That was not disclosed to her.

[VWolf]

13. May she be the first of many.

As the parent of a couple of child actors, I'd NEVER want this to happen to them. It's exceedingly difficult to find work as a struggling actor, and when you find it, you would hope that the producer & director would at least be honest about the film. Often, an actor is given only a couple pages of the script (those scenes in which they appear), and in thoses cases it's difficult to discern what the film is all about.

In this case, the dubbing of all the controversial lines was so obvious. Watching it made my blood boil, and it had nothing to do with religion.

[Javaman]

15. It will be the first and probably the last. If you are the parent of children who act, then you...

have undoubtedly signed release forms. I have included copies of the standard general and talent/model release forms below.

I worked in film for many many years and had to hire actors countless times and each and every time, I hire them I require them to read the release forms and I can't even begin to tell you the amount of times I have had actors tell me "they know what's in it and don't need to read it". I always make sure that I have a witness when they refuse to read the release form.

If this actor is allowed to sue and the case goes forward, (if she did in fact sign a release form), this will have major repercussions for the entertainment industry. It will basically allow any actor, from the star to a part time extra not appearing anywhere in the final product from exerting some sort of control or influence upon the final product. Granted major stars already have influence upon the final product of many films but that is written into their contracts.

If she did sign a release form, she won't have a leg to stand on.

[VWolf]

21. I have read the release forms, but they never mention

this type of thing. Perhaps because we've stuck to student and smaller indie films here in NYC.

Might be a different beast in Hollywood. You do make a good point.

[Javaman]

22. A lot of student and smaller indie type films...

will copy and paste outdated release forms from either text books, hand outs from classes and or old release forms they have used for countless years.

That said, they all include the element of the actor basically giving up all control of their image, voice, etc. This is put in place so the producer/director have complete creative control over the final product.

That paragraph that states as such, has been a hollywood standard since the silent movie days. It was a hold over from the studio run films from the "golden age". In essence, Sam Warner didn't want any actor to tell him how to do his job.

[concern4art]

47. A hold over? What are you talking about javaman?

Here's the deal. A film is a device to share information and ideas with an audience. Anyone that somehow manages to think there is some moral obligation to truth and fairness in this sharing is relic of the inquisition and macarthyism. Those releases are not outdated they are standard forms. Just like you posting your opinions here gives this site the right to display them forever. They can change the font, bold the type and weight certain phrases and words to color your posts to their liking. It's just how it is man. If you want to act, model, write or create for someone else then you will probably see a document like this. You also have the right and power to walk away, probably like several other people did from the parts they gladly accepted. Your probably one of the people that prefers to be warned that a ladder is dangerous to your health if you choose to fall off of it.

The essence of a release is to secure the work that was paid for so that it can be used for its intended purpose without fear of frivolous legal action. If an actor doesn't like the agreement most people will negotiate but it's far easier to know that what you have in the can is yours and ready to be put to use in your project.

Jeez man what gives?

[Javaman]

53. Yes,they are standard forms...

However, the standard release form has changed over the years.

Since I first got into film professionally back in '85 and making films since '78, the standard release form has always maintained the boiler plate clause of covering a persons image, voice etc and they becoming the property of the production company for the duration and life of the final product.

However, during the time I have been in film, the standard release form has evolved to cover various new forms of media. Also, new work laws for children working on sets, animals on set, older adults on sets and actors working in "hazardous" conditions have come into being. As a result the "standard release form" has had to change to accommodate this things.

The release form from '78 is very different from the one form '90 and the one used now is different form the one that came out in '02.

These various changed reflect what has changed in society as well.

Aside from all these things, it appears to me that you haven't read any of my other posts in this thread and seem to take an odd view as to what I'm saying. I never ever once said that the producer/ director had any limits and in fact, in two of my posts, I state clearly that the release forms are put in place to allow creative freedom for the directors and producers in their productions.

So, honestly, I have no idea what you are talking about or why you are barking up this tree.

I have been simply stating whether or not fraud has been perpetrated in regards to the producer/director misrepresenting himself by falsifying his name on legal documents.

[ehrnst]

55. There is a business obligation to disclose the nature of the project.

The script that she signed a release after reading was substantially changed after her part in it.

This goes beyond editing, and you are not naive enough to think that this film is the run of the mill budget feature.

Jeez, wake up and get a clue about what the term FRAUD means. Especially when the other party signing the contract uses a false alias...

[Javaman]

58. Script changes are part of the business.

Part of the general release basically gives the producer/director free reign to do what ever they please with the actors image, voice, etc.

Script changes are part of the nature of the business.

It is an editing issue. Because if he edited the movie on a computer, it's in complete violation of his parole. That's what they will eventually nail him on.

As far as the actor is concerned, that's a separate issue entirely. She signed a release form. If it is shown that he filed his LLC for his production company under a different name than what he signed his legal docs (during the production of the film) then it's fraud.

If he used the same name on the legal docs as he filed the LLC for the production company with the state, then the burden of fraud falls upon the state to prove.

It's obviously clear at this point the guy did commit some sort of fraud since we have found out that he has a history of such and has now known to have several aliases.

The involvement of the state only complicates the actors lawsuit.

and as I have stated in other posts in this thread, I believe the actor has a better chance of civil suit instead of suing the production company. Most production companies have zero assets. That's why they file an LLC. To protect against personal lawsuits. However, that doesn't absolve the producer/director form a civil lawsuit since he apparently and willfully choose to fraudulently represent himself to the actors.

They actors could claim loss of reputation and loss of work by unknowingly being part of such an inflammatory production.

[ehrnst]

62. Not genre changes that were intended prior to giving the script to the actors.

Believe, me I think that we agree more than we disagree - but I think that she can make a very good case that she was purposefully defrauded when she was told that it was a "desert adventure movie" and given an alternate script will all references to the main theme of the film omitted.

This team has a history of inflammatory propaganda - but there was not really a way she could know that if the producers used aliases, or did not disclose that people like Terry Jones were on board with the project.

And she could absolutely lose reputation and work being a part of this project, and information that would have allowed her to consent or refuse those consequences was clearly kept from her.

I'm wondering if release forms will clarify such issues as disclosing the intended genre of the film, or if there will be any sexual content, religious point of views or political statements.

I know that casting directors in DC keep "Democrat" and "Republican" files of actors for political ads - to prevent actors from jumping sides to do parody. That sort of disclosure protects producers - maybe it's time for some protections for actors.

I've worked with the actor that was Harry in the original Harry and Louise ads fighting the Clinton health care reform legislation. He said that he had no idea (and regretted) that those commercials would have the impact that they did. He never imagined even going to the press to say that he regretted doing it, because he was informed that it was a Republican ad before even auditioning. Now if he had been told that it was a Democrat ad, when it was a Republican ad, he might have some room to complain.

[Javaman]

64. yeah, it's a matter of semantics now.

but we do agree on the main points.

bottom line: if you are a crew member or an actor, make sure you know what you are getting into before you sign anything, and that means, especially in this day in age where there is a lot of info available in the net, research the above the line folks and the production company. And unless you are really really desperate for a credit, if the production company has no credits and it appears as if the director and producer had fallen from space and also have no credits, be wise and ask a lot of questions before you commit to anything.

[ehrnst]

66. Definitely - I'm SAG eligible, so I really can't do indie stuff anymore.

And DC is smaller than LA, so word gets around VERY fast if a group or project is sketchy.

[Javaman]

70. Good luck on SAG. :)

I'm no longer in film, but I was in the Local 600 cameraman's union.

There is such a colossal difference working union as opposed to non.

Cheers!

[Javaman]

14. If she signed a release form, she really doesn't have much of a case. here are the forms...

Standard Talent/Model release form...

In consideration of the sum of $ [type amount here] and any other good and valuable considerations, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, I, being of legal age, hereby give [Production Company Name], their licensees, successors, legal representatives, and assigns the absolute and irrevocable right and permission to use my name and to use, reproduce, edit, exhibit, project, display, copyright, publish and/or resell photography images and/or moving pictures and/or videotaped images of me with or without my voice, or in which I may be included in whole or in part, photographed, taped, videotaped, and/or recorded on [date] and thereafter, and to circulate the same in all forms and media for art, advertising, trade, competition of every description and/or any other lawful purpose whatsoever. I also consent to the use of any printed matter in conjunction therewith.

I hereby waive any right that I may have to inspect and/or approve the finished product or products or the editorial, advertising, or printed copy or soundtrack that may be used in connection therewith and any right that I may have to control the use to which said product, products, copy and/or soundtrack may be applied.

I hereby release, discharge and agree to save [Production Company Name], their licensees, successors, legal representatives and assigns from any liability by virtue of any blurring, distortion, alteration, optical illusion or use in composite form whether intentional or otherwise that may occur or be produced in the making, processing, duplication, projecting or displaying of said picture or images, and from liability for violation of any personal or proprietary right that I may have in conjunction with said pictures or images and with the use thereof.

snip...

Standard General Release Form...

Whereas, I understand that my voice, name, and image will be recorded by various mechanical and electrical means of all descriptions (such recordings, any piece thereof, the contents therein and all reproductions thereof, along with the utilization of my name, shall be collectively referred to herein as the "Released Subject Matter&quot ,

Therefore, in exchange for $1.00, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged and whose sufficiency as consideration I affirm, I hereby freely and without restraint consent to and give unto the Producer and its agents or assigns or anyone authorized by the Producer, (collectively referred to herein as the "Releasees&quot the unrestrained right in perpetuity to own, utilize, or alter the Released Subject Matter, in any manner the Releasees may see fit and for any purpose whatsoever, all of the foregoing to be without limitation of any kind. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, I hereby authorize the Releasees and grant unto them the unrestrained rights to utilize the Released Subject Matter in connection with the Video's advertising, publicity, public displays, and exhibitions. I hereby stipulate that the Released Subject Matter is the property of the Producer to do with as it will.

I hereby waive to the fullest extent that I may lawfully do so, any causes of action in law or equity I may have or may hereafter acquire against the Releasees or any of them for libel, slander, invasion of privacy, copyright or trademark violation, right of publicity, or false light arising out of or in connection with the utilization by the Releasees or another of the Released Subject Matter.

It is my intention that the above mentioned consideration represents the sole compensation that I am entitled to receive in connection with any and all usages of the Released Subject Matter. I expressly stipulate that the Releasees may utilize the Released Subject Matter or not as they choose in their sole discretion without affecting the validity of this Release. This Release shall be governed by Virginia law.

[slackmaster]

28. Thanks for posting that, Javaman

It's always good to get information from people who have personal knowledge.

[eppur_se_muova]

29. "to the fullest extent that I may lawfully do so" ... interesting phrase.

The question then becomes, what are the controlling laws ? I imagine CA has a few laws on the books regarding this ... probably her lawyers have been over them thoroughly.

[Javaman]

36. Entertainment law is big business in L.A....

And any lawyer in that field knows full well the "in's and out's" of the various entertainment boil-plate contracts.

This being a low budget film, there isn't a whole lot to go after here.

More than likely, the producer/director, formed an LLC so if she's suing for money, she won't get much. Most production companies in the low budget realm own little more than the company name.

I think she will have more success with a civil suit.

Frankly, I don't think we will hear much about the lawsuit from this point forward. Aside from the producer/director being a fraud and really really stupid, there aren't a whole lot of sordid details regarding the production company.

Frankly, I think the actor is trying to make lemonade out of the lemons. And I think she should. There is no clear path to success in the film industry and any way you can make it, go for it. I say. Plenty of people have become famous from a lot less than this.

[concern4art]

48. So it all boils down to this comment you made....

"This being a low budget film, there isn't a whole lot to go after here."

So, it all boils down to money? How is the producer/director a fraud? He made a movie, she auditioned for a part and acted in it. Was someone holding a gun to her head? Was the director/producer under any obligation to create a film that would pass your judgement or anyone else's? We live in a free country man. This is the fruit of all the labor of our ancestors. They died so we can make crap movies that might inflame or ridicule others. That's what free speech is. Did someone hold a gun to the heads of the people that went berserk? Was it responsible of him to make this film? Who's to judge? You? Me? Her? An Attorney?

[Javaman]

50. Yeah, it boils down to money.

so what?

The producer could potentially be a fraud by falsifying his name on legal documents associated with the film.

No one was holding a gun to her head and it appears as if you enjoy putting words in peoples mouths. As you can see in my countless replies in this this thread, unless the producer/director committed fraud by using an assumed name on legal docs when filing a "doing business as" form when forming his LLC, then the burden falls on the actor to prove it. Because she signed a model/talent -general release form. I'm just stating the facts.

You jump a lot of very bizarre and unfounded conclusion based upon, I have no idea what?

And you try to equate this whole mess (I never once brought up the riots- I was speaking solely from a legal point of view regarding the film and nothing else) to someone shooting people in a theater? That is some major weird going on.

And finally, it is abundantly clear that you have zero knowledge of the entertainment industry.

So please, study a little bit before you spout hyperbole. It's really unattractive.

[ehrnst]

54. She was given a bogus script. If it had turned out to be a porn film

she could be fired from a teaching job.

You clearly have no understanding of what goes into a film, or what it considered standard in the acting or film industry.

You need to change your posting name...

[Javaman]

56. more over...

I think if it turned out to be a porno, she would have simply walked off the set.

I think the producer/director committed willful fraud, knowing full well he wouldn't get anyone to act or work on his crappy movie.

As I have been saying in other posts in this thread, I think she has a case, but the issue is not fraud per say, but how he committed it.

if he filed under his fake name and used that same fake name in legal docs while making the film, then the burden of fraud falls on the state. While she can and will continue her lawsuit, it's no longer a clear cut open and shut case for her, it now involves the state, and while she will still probably win, it's now a much larger legal matter.

In reality, as I said in other post, she has a better chance through a civil lawsuit claiming that be he falsifying legal docs and not being forthcoming with the true intent of the basis for the film, it has cost her reputation loss and loss of work due to be associated with such inflammatory material that wasn't clearly spelled out in the initial synopsis of the film.

Trying to sue the production company is a losing battle. Most of them are fly by night operations filed under an LLC which have zero assets and usually own nothing more than it's production name.

[Bluenorthwest]

32. The form is a two way agreement. Seems that the 'producer's signature' was not

his legal name, so he signed fraudulently and that would void the agreement from the start. I can not claim to be someone else, engage in contracts as a fictional person, and then enforce those contracts as myself. You can not commit fraud to get a contract signed and expect that contract to stand.
I'm almost certain that each and every time you dealt with such an agreement, the producer used their legal name when signing. So of course all the agreements you dealt with could stand. Had they claimed to be Spielberg to the other parties, they have no agreement. That's just the fact.
Personally, I have not seen the agreement, but I do recall that it took the press days to figure out who the guy was. This means he used alias names. If he entered that contract as a person he is not, that agreement is void. Do you know if he was honest and signed his actual legal name? Or are you just assuming that he behaved in the manner you are used to from legitimate producers? I assume the opposite, that he engaged in fraud to gain those signatures. You assume he was fully above board and doing due dilegnece and all that. This was not a Union agreement, obviously, but still, no one gets to claim to be who they are not and then sign contracts as who they are not. That's illegal. And any such contracts are void, for the person who signed them does not exist....

[Javaman]

35. That's probably the best angle she can hope for...

There are plenty of "fly by night" production companies that vanish off the radar quickly after a crappy movie is produced and the actors payment "deferred" until the movie makes a profit...which is supposedly never does.

But there is the gray area of the guy using a false identity as his name on a legal doc.

The question now remains, did he sign his name as the "witness" on the release form or did someone else?

in most cases, in low budget films, it is the producer/director who signs, in bigger films it's the casting agent.

So what it comes down to is: whose name is on that release form?

And perhaps that is the path the actor and her lawyers are taking.

[Bluenorthwest]

40. It is not a 'gray area' if he lied about his identity to them, there is NO contract

The casting director signs only as empowered to by other signed agreements, that is they are the agent of the producer, acting as proxy for an ACTUAL producer, no one can be proxy to a fictional person. The casting director does not have that authority automatically, that is gieven to them by the Producer. If the producer is a fraud, the casting director's signature means nothing, no matter who that person might be. They are the legal proxy for the Producer in the cases where they sign.
The story I read had the same guy calling himself many names and many titles to different people. It is a fair assumption that he was ALL of the people involved. If he hired a casting director, that agreement is also in question.

[Javaman]

43. Actually there is a gray area...

if he registered the LLC under that name, then technically he wasn't misrepresenting himself to anyone only to the state. If falls under "doing business as" cause. Then it opens it up to a different legal action that falls within the state legality.

Plenty of low budget producers file LLC's under different names especially in the porn industry.

I'm not saying it makes it legal, just that it makes it more complicated.

[Blue_Tires]

42. I'm thinking that's her legal strategy as well

it could play out in her favor...

[ehrnst]

59. If, however, she was given a copy of the full script - as she states she was

That may have ramifications, because that was the information that she was given on the film.

Having worked behind and in front of camera on instructional films for the government, as well as feature films (in the DC area - so I'm familiar with the forms), you're aware actors are often not given full scripts - but a synopsis or simply a genre to indicate the type of film. If it's an indie film, you generally expect to get the whole script - and I would have issues working on an indie project where I didn't know the producers, and they wouldn't at least let me look at the script.

If I had been handed a full script for a feature romantic comedy, then it turned that it was a bait and switch to get extras for a hardcore porn film - I'd be doing what this actress is doing.

[Javaman]

60. You would have also walked off the set.

Using porn as an example is a bit extreme.

What is going on here, to me, is much more insidious.

While I have been arguing and stating my opinion from a legal stand point, working on a porno is something that wildly obvious and would no doubt cause most professional actors and crew members to walk off the set.

With this film, this is more a case of outright deception than bait and switch.

The part, which I haven't mentioned yet, but still sticks me in the side is that the production company had the actors loop some lines after the fact with names such as "Mohammad", etc.

To me, given the subject matter of the original intent as it was presented to the actors and crew, it would appear as if they were just add more dialog.

And that is were it becomes really insidious.

Also, I would be suspicious of any film, low budget or not, that didn't have daily sides. I would really like to know if there were any.

[ehrnst]

61. If the porn scenes were shot later, when I wasn't there, I couldn't very well walk off the set

could, I? That's what happened here - dialogue was dubbed, and no mention of the inflammatory content or sexual content was made to her. So, yes, I think that the example of a porn movie is valid.

She was told it was a desert adventure movie (when it was planned to be an anti-islam propaganda piece) and given an incomplete script. She said that there was no mention of Mohammed or religion in the script she was given - which was the main theme of the project.

I only saw sides when I worked behind the camera.

[Javaman]

63. Shot later? LOL

I had friends in L.A. that worked on them, they are no "other scenes" LOL

Sides are for everyone, how do you think actors know when there has been a dialog change?

I'm not going to argue semantics.

We agree on the main points, let's leave it at that.

[ehrnst]

67. Sorry - thinking Rushes, instead of Sides. (nt)

[uppityperson]

68. Are you saying porn films are solid sex from opening to end? There often are minor bits

here and there of non-sex scenes. It depends on the film.

It is possible for someone to have some scenes shot and not be in on the sex part. lol

Or are you saying it is impossible to shoot some scenes, then put them into a film that is different than what that actor thought it was going to be?

[Javaman]

69. most porns are shot in a single day, most of the time two in a day.

rarely, very very rarely, they go into a second day.

I have had a couple of friends work on them back in the day. If you need money in a bad way, they will be a paycheck.

[uppityperson]

71. that may be, but they also add in other footage that isn't porn

I have a friend who also used to work them back in the day. It paid. Her film had other bits, not just sex.

[Javaman]

72. this conversation has taken a very odd and strange twist.

I'm not going to debate the nuance of the porn industry.

Frankly, who cares?

[uppityperson]

73. Because this is the basis of the OP? Because she might have been filmed in something that

was different from what it was used for. If the script was switched, if what she thought she was acting for was something different than what it was used for.

[Javaman]

75. Oh for the love of all things good, give it up.

it doesn't matter anymore.

The conversation has run it's course.

[uppityperson]

76. Well, excuse me for answering. Why such a nasty reply? Good grief. For sure I will stop

talking with you if this is how you reply to answers to questions or discussions.

[Javaman]

77. Not nasty.

If you think that was nasty you have a very thin skin.

just give it a rest.

[uppityperson]

78. last-word-itis?

[Javaman]

79. LOL Sure, why not?

word.

[Jamastiene]

27. It sounds like the film is ruining the lives of everyone

who was duped into making it. Can the people in the film who were duped sue the director for being a con artist? He put their lives in serious jeopardy with his nonsense.

[Javaman]

37. I think their best bet is a civil lawsuit.

beyond that, trying to suit for defamation of character is pretty tough if you are an actor playing a fictional part.

[ehrnst]

41. As an actor, I can see that she could argue that she was misinformed of the

Last edited Fri Sep 21, 2012, 09:18 AM - Edit history (1)

films' actual content, message and intent.

If I was told that I had a part in a feature film, no matter how low budget, and it turned out to be a porn film, I'd do what I could to get some damages. It could harm a career - even one outside acting, like a teaching career. This could to that for this actress.

She could argue that she's been put in a position of danger, being part of a propaganda film that was arguably marketed to incite violence.

But she probably has the best case for fraud in that 'Sam Bacile' was a false identity.

[Javaman]

44. I think added argument could be that now she is associated with the film...

it has limited her opportunities as an actor and suffers loss of income.

Sadly, given the producers proclivity for fraud, I don't think she will get any settlement.

[concern4art]

46. This is what's wrong with America and more and more of the world...

People not taking responsibility for their actions. She signed a release and contract unless the "director" is a complete hack. She read the script, like any discerning and concerned actress would, just to see if it was something that might eat at her moral fiber, I'm assuming. Take responsibility and get over it. Just because they have a hard time dealing with freedom of speech doesn't mean we need to give up ours. Jeezuz H. Kreist people, wake the ef up! Any film is an interpretation of something by everyone involved. Every article no matter how factual is jaded by the fact that it was written by a human being. What's so threatening about a little creative criticism, granted I haven't watched the film and probably never will because it just isn't that important to me, why get your panties all in a wad just because someone else has a wedgie!

I believe she should be counter sued for bringing a frivolous lawsuit into our legal system just to make a statement to cover her butt. At some point this crap just has to end. I'm going to sleep, to dream, per chance, of lawsuits and how I can use one to take the blame for my ignorance.

[ehrnst]

52. Did you read the article? The script she received had no mention of Mohammed or religion.

"There was no mention of 'Mohammed' during filming or on set. There were no references made to religion nor was there any sexual content of which Ms Garcia was aware,"

How is she supposed to "take responsibility and get over it" when the project she agreed to was not the one that was being produced?

The premise of your rant is a mistaken impression that she was treated like any actor is. She was defrauded, and her safety and career could be compromised.

Do you enjoy pizza, by the way?

[uppityperson]

65. This is what's wrong with America and more and more of the world...

people hearing or reading a short clip and jumping to assumptions, then vigorously defending those assumptions. Jeeze man, what gives?

[AlphaCentauri]

74. I just finish watching the movie -Monty Python's Life of Brian-

Now what?
Should I start acting like a savage?
No way Jose.

[TexasBushwhacker]

80. Her resume on IMDB and her profile on LinkedIn both have this movie as one of her credits

She just wants the publicity. She has a total of 3 credits, "Desert Warriors" is one of them. She's left this on her resume that's posted on IMDB and her profile on LinkedIn. She spelled Desert as "Dessert" on her LinkedIn profile. If she was so worried about her reputation, why wouldn't she remove this film from her credits as soon as she realized she was involved with it? I doubt she even has a SAG card. You can see for yourself.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm4555815/resume

http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=129356428&authType=NAME_SEARCH&authToken=nT9k&locale=en_US&srchid=bb22ef5c-21ad-4ea7-a4bb-f2a343932882-0&srchindex=2&srchtotal=12&goback=.fps_PBCK_cindy+lee+garcia_*1_*1_*1_*1_*1_*1_*2_*1_Y_*1_*1_*1_false_1_R_*1_*51_*1_*51_true_*2_*2_*2_*2_*2_*2_*2_*2_*2_*2_*2_*2_*2_*2_*2_*2_*2_*2_*2_*2_*2&pvs=ps&trk=pp_profile_name_link

[Darth_Kitten]

81. Why sue the director unless he's the producer as well?

Gee, why not sue the make-up artists or editor?