Source: https://h2o.law.harvard.edu/text_blocks/25181
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 16:25:08+00:00

Document:
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.
Before: Alex Kozinski, Chief Judge, Ronald M. Gould and N. Randy Smith, Circuit Judges.
The panel filed (1) an order amending a previous opinion and dissent and stating that a petition for rehearing en banc remained pending, (2) an amended opinion, and (3) an amended dissent in an appeal from the district court’s denial in a copyright case of a preliminary injunction requiring the removal from YouTube.com of an anti-Islamic film that used a performance that the plaintiff made for a different film.
Reversing the district court’s denial of the preliminary injunction, the panel concluded that the plaintiff established a likelihood of success on the merits of her claim of infringement of her performance within the film because she proved (1) that she likely had a protectible interest in the performance and (2) that the filmmaker did not own an interest as a work for hire and exceeded any implied license to use the plaintiff’s performance.
The panel held that the plaintiff established the likelihood that irreparable harm would result if an injunction did not issue because she was subject to death threats and took action as soon as she began receiving the threats. The plaintiff also established sufficient causal connection between the infringement of her copyright and the harm she alleged.
The panel also held that the balance of the equities and the public interest weighed in favor of injunctive relief.
Cris Armenta (argued), The Armenta Law Firm APC, Los Angeles, California and Credence Sol, Chauvigng, France, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Timothy L. Alger (argued) and Sunita Bali, Perkins Coie LLP, Palo Alto, California, for Defendants-Appellees.
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.
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. 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.
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 (2008). The district court found against Garcia on the first two factors and didn’t consider the last two.
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.
But just because Garcia isn’t a joint author of “Innocence of Muslims” doesn’t mean she doesn’t have a copyright interest in her own performance within the film. Whether an individual who makes an independently copyrightable contribution to a joint work can retain a copyright interest in that contribution is a rarely litigated question. See Thomson v. Larson, 147 F.3d 195, 206 (2d Cir. 1998) (dismissing similar argument on procedural grounds); see also David Nimmer, Address, Copyright in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Authorship and Originality, 38 Hous. L. Rev. 1, 186–87 & n.942 (2001). Nothing in the Copyright Act suggests that a copyright interest in a creative contribution to a work simply disappears because the contributor doesn’t qualify as a joint author of the entire work. 17 U.S.C. § 102(a) (“Copyright protection subsists . . . in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium . . . .”). Where, as here, the artistic contribution is fixed, the key question remains whether it’s sufficiently creative to be protectible.
Aalmuhammed isn’t to the contrary because it does not, as the dissent would have it, “articulate general principles of authorship.” Dissent 27. Aalmuhammed only discusses what is required for a contributor to a work to assert joint ownership over the entire work: “We hold that authorship is required under the statutory definition of a joint work, and that authorship is not the same thing as making a valuable and copyrightable contribution.” 202 F.3d at 1232.
Aalmuhammed plainly contemplates that an individual can make a “copyrightable contribution” and yet not become a joint author of the whole work. Id. For example, the author of a single poem does not necessarily become a co-author of the anthology in which the poem is published. It makes sense to impose heightened requirements on those who would leverage their individual contribution into ownership of a greater whole, but those requirements don’t apply to the copyrightability of all creative works, for which only a “minimal creative spark [is] required by the Copyright Act and the Constitution.” Feist Publ’ns, 499 U.S. at 363.
Nor does Midler v. Ford Motor Co., 849 F.2d 460 (9th Cir. 1988), speak to the problem before us. First, of course, Midler isn’t a copyright case at all—it’s a right of publicity case that happens to discuss copyright in the context of preemption, not infringement. Second, Midler discusses the copyrightability of a performer’s voice—not her performance. See 849 F.2d at 462. A performer’s voice is analogous to her image, which we’ve said “is not a work of authorship” under the Copyright Act. Downing v. Abercrombie & Fitch, 265 F.3d 994, 1004 (9th Cir. 2001). But that doesn’t answer the question of whether the artist’s creativity, expressed through her voice or image, is protected by copyright. Just because someone’s voice—its particular timbre and quality—can’t be copyrighted, doesn’t mean that a performance made using that voice can never be protected. In fact, many vocal performances are copyrighted. See, e.g., Laws v. Sony Music Entm’t, Inc., 448 F.3d 1134, 1141 (9th Cir. 2006).
Recognizing that Garcia may have a copyright interest in her performance isn’t the end of the inquiry. A screenplay is itself a copyrightable creative work and a film is a derivative work of the screenplay on which it is based. See Gilliam v. Am. Broad. Cos., 538 F.2d 14, 20 (2d Cir. 1976); see also 17 U.S.C. § 101; 2 Nimmer on Copyright § 2.10[A] n.8. Where, as here, an actor’s performance is based on a script, the performance is likewise derivative of the script, such that the actor might be considered to have infringed the screenwriter’s copyright. And an infringing derivative work isn’t entitled to copyright protection. See 17 U.S.C. § 103(a); see also U.S. Auto Parts Network, Inc. v. Parts Geek, LLC, 692 F.3d 1009, 1016 (9th Cir. 2012).
Of course, by hiring Garcia, giving her the script and turning a camera on her, Youssef implicitly granted her a license to perform his screenplay. See Effects Assocs., Inc. v. Cohen, 908 F.2d 555, 558–59 (9th Cir. 1990). This doesn’t mean that Garcia owns a copyright interest in the entire scene: She can claim copyright in her own contribution but not in “preexisting material” such as the words or actions spelled out in the underlying script. 17 U.S.C. § 103(b); see also U.S. Auto Parts Network, Inc., 692 F.3d at 1016. Garcia may assert a copyright interest only in the portion of “Innocence of Muslims” that represents her individual creativity, but even if her contribution is relatively minor, it isn’t de minimis. See Feist, 499 U.S. at 359, 363. We need not and do not decide whether every actor has a copyright in his performance within a movie. It suffices for now to hold that, while the matter is fairly debatable, Garcia is likely to prevail based on the record and arguments before us.
Nothing we say today precludes the district court from concluding that Garcia doesn’t have a copyrightable interest, or that Google prevails on any of its defenses. We note, for example, that after we first issued our opinion, the United States Copyright Office sent Garcia a letter denying her request to register a copyright in her performance. Because this is not an appeal of the denial of registration, the Copyright Office’s refusal to register doesn’t “preclude a determination” that Garcia’s performance “is indeed copyrightable.” OddzOn Prods., Inc. v. Oman, 924 F.2d 346, 347 (D.C. Cir. 1991). But the district court may still defer to the Copyright Office’s reasoning, to the extent it is persuasive. See Inhale, Inc. v. Starbuzz Tobacco, Inc., 739 F.3d 446, 448–49 (9th Cir. 2014).
After we first published our opinion, amici raised other issues, such as the applicability of the fair use doctrine, see 17 U.S.C. § 107, and section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, see 47 U.S.C. § 230. Because these defenses were not raised by the parties, we do not address them. The district court is free to consider them if Google properly raises them.
moviemakers a simple, straightforward way of obtaining ownership of the copyright in a creative contribution— namely, a written agreement.” Effects Assocs., 908 F.2d at 558. Youssef didn’t obtain a written agreement, and Garcia simply doesn’t qualify as a traditional employee on this record.
The dissent believes Garcia was an employee primarily because “Youssef controll[ed] both the manner and means of making the film, including the scenes featuring Garcia” and Youssef “was engaged in the business of film making at the time.” Dissent 34. But there’s no evidence in the record that Youssef directed the film or that he controlled the manner in which any part of the film—much less Garcia’s scene—was shot. In fact, Youssef has claimed only that he wrote the screenplay.
There’s nothing in the record to suggest that Youssef was in the “regular business” of making films. Reid, 490 U.S. at 752. He’d held many jobs, but there’s no indication he ever worked in the film industry. And there’s no evidence he had any union contracts, relationships with prop houses or other film suppliers, leases of studio space or distribution agreements. The dissent would hold that Youssef was in the “regular business” of filmmaking simply because he made “Innocence of Muslims.” But if shooting a single amateur film amounts to the regular business of filmmaking, every schmuck with a videocamera becomes a movie mogul.
A non-exclusive license may be implied from conduct and arises where a plaintiff “create[s] a work at defendant’s request and hand[s] it over, intending that defendant copy and distribute it.” Effects Assocs., 908 F.2d at 558. We’ve found an implied license where the plaintiff’s contribution to a film or other work would otherwise be worthless or of “minimal value.” Id. at 559; see also Oddo v. Ries, 743 F.2d 630, 634 (9th Cir. 1984). That is the case here. Garcia auditioned for a role in a particular film, was paid for her performance and had every reason to believe Youssef would eventually release the film. Without an implied license, the performance for which she was paid would be unusable. Therefore, we agree with Google that Garcia granted Youssef an implied license.
Any such license must be construed broadly. If the scope of an implied license was exceeded merely because a film didn’t meet the ex ante expectation of an actor, that license would be virtually meaningless. See Foad Consulting Grp., Inc. v. Azzalino, 270 F.3d 821, 837–38 (9th Cir. 2001) (Kozinski, J., concurring). A narrow, easily exceeded license could allow an actor to force the film’s author to re-edit the film—in violation of the author’s exclusive right to prepare derivative works. See 17 U.S.C. § 106(2). Or the actor could prevent the film’s author from exercising his exclusive right to show the work to the public. See 17 U.S.C. § 106(4). In other words, unless these types of implied licenses are construed very broadly, actors could leverage their individual contributions into de facto authorial control over the film.
She’s made such a showing. Youssef’s unauthorized inclusion of her performance in “Innocence of Muslims” undisputedly led to the threats against Garcia. Google argues that any harm arises solely out of Garcia’s participation in “Innocence of Muslims” and not out of YouTube’s continued hosting of the film. But Garcia has shown that removing the film from YouTube will help disassociate her from the film’s anti-Islamic message and that such disassociation will keep her from suffering future threats and physical harm. Although Google asserts that the film is so widespread that removing it from YouTube will have no effect, it has provided no evidence to support this point. Taking down the film from YouTube will remove it from a prominent online platform—the platform on which it was first displayed—and will curb the harms of which Garcia complains.
The problem with Google’s position is that it rests entirely on the assertion that Garcia’s proposed injunction is an unconstitutional prior restraint of speech. But the First Amendment doesn’t protect copyright infringement. Cf. Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186, 219–220 (2003). “First Amendment protections are ‘embodied in the Copyright Act’s distinction between copyrightable expression and uncopyrightable facts and ideas,’ and in the ‘latitude for scholarship and comment’ safeguarded by the fair use defense.” Golan v. Holder, 132 S. Ct. 873, 890 (2012) (quoting Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enters., 471 U.S. 539, 560 (1985)). Google hasn’t raised fair use as a defense in this appeal, see page 11 supra, so we do not consider it in determining its likelihood of success. This does not, of course, preclude Google from raising the point in the district court, provided it properly preserved the defense in its pleadings.
Because Garcia has demonstrated a likelihood of success on her claim that “Innocence of Muslims” infringes her copyright, Google’s argument fails. The balance of equities therefore clearly favors Garcia and, to the extent the public interest is implicated at all, it, too, tips in Garcia’s direction.
This is a troubling case. Garcia was duped into providing an artistic performance that was used in a way she never could have foreseen. Her unwitting and unwilling inclusion in “Innocence of Muslims” led to serious threats against her life. It’s disappointing, though perhaps not surprising, that Garcia needed to sue in order to protect herself and her rights.
But she has sued and, more than that, she’s shown that she is likely to succeed on her copyright claim, that she faces irreparable harm absent an injunction and that the balance of equities and the public interest favor her position. The district court abused its discretion in finding otherwise.
Different from the usual “prohibitory injunction,” a “mandatory injunction goes well beyond simply maintaining the status quo pendente lite.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). As an example, requiring a university to reappoint a faculty member whose contract had expired constitutes a mandatory injunction. Id.; see also, e.g., Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 879 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[T]he affirmative step of recalling [a] product” is also a mandatory injunction.). In the instant dispute, Garcia requests relief through a mandatory injunction. Rather than asking to maintain the status quo pending litigation, Garcia demands Google immediately remove a film from YouTube. Therefore, her request must be “subject to a higher degree of scrutiny because such relief is particularly disfavored under the law of this circuit.”Stanley, 13 F.3d at 1320. This higher degree of scrutiny requires courts to be “extremely cautious” and “deny such relief unless the facts and law clearly favor the moving party.” Id. at 1319–20 (internal quotation marks omitted, emphasis added). Indeed, mandatory injunctions “are not issued in doubtful cases.” Anderson v. United States, 612 F.2d 1112, 1115 (9th Cir. 1979) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Given this standard, the majority errs in requiring Google to pull the film from YouTube—at this stage of the litigation. The district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the law and facts did not clearly favor Garcia. Instead, the majority makes new law in this circuit in order to reach the result it seeks. We have never held that an actress’s performance could be copyrightable. Indeed, “[t]here is little case law or statutory authority as to the position of performers as authors of an audiovisual work under U.S. law.” F. Jay Dougherty, Not a Spike Lee Joint? Issues in the Authorship of Motion Pictures under U.S. Copyright Law, 49 UCLA L. Rev. 225, 300 (2001).
“A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008).
A protected interest under the Copyright Act must be an “original work of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression. . . .” 17 U.S.C. § 102(a). Garcia does not clearly have a copyright interest in her acting performance, because (1) her acting performance is not a work, (2) she is not an author, and (3) her acting performance is too personal to be fixed.
individual performance in a film, casting doubt on the conclusion that the latter can constitute a work. See Microsoft Corp. v. C.I.R., 311 F.3d 1178, 1184–85 (9th Cir. 2002) (“The doctrine of noscitur a sociis counsels that words should be understood by the company they keep.”).
In sum, a motion picture is a work. Id. at § 102(a). A segment independently produced and then incorporated into a motion picture is also a work. See, e.g., Effects Assocs., Inc. Cohen, 908 F.2d 555, 556 (9th Cir. 1990). However, the Copyright Act does not clearly place an acting performance within its sphere of copyrightable works. As a result, the law and facts do not clearly favor finding a copyrightable interest in Garcia’s acting performance.
Like the work requirement, the Copyright Act also premises copyright protection on authorship. 17 U.S.C. § 102(a). Authorship is also a constitutional copyright requirement. See U.S. Const. Art. I, § 8, cl. 8; Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony, 111 U.S. 53, 56 (1884).
Aalmuhammed v. Lee is the most relevant case in this circuit on the question of authorship. 202 F.3d 1227 (9th Cir. 2000). Though the Aalmuhammed court discussed authorship in the context of joint authors of a film (which Garcia does not claim to be), it articulated general principles of authorship that assist in analyzing Garcia’s interest in her acting performance.
The Aalmuhammed court explained that “[t]he word [author] is traditionally used to mean the originator or the person who causes something to come into being.” Id. at 1232. In other words, the author is the “person with creative control.” Id. Thus, “an author ‘superintends’ the work by exercising control.” Id. at 1234 (quoting Burrow-Giles, 111 U.S. at 61) (alteration omitted). Another framing by the court defined an author as “‘he to whom anything owes its origin.’” Id. at 1233 (quoting Burrow-Giles, 111 U.S. at 58). An author might also be “‘the inventive or master mind’ who ‘creates, or gives effect to the idea.’” Id. at 1234 (quoting Burrow-Giles, 111 U.S. at 61). Indeed, authorship “requires more than a minimal creative or original contribution to the work.” Id. at 1233 (citing Burrow-Giles, 111 U.S. at 58) (emphasis added). These principles comport with the “general rule,” that “the author is the party who actually creates the work, that is, the person who translates an idea into a fixed, tangible expression entitled to copyright protection.” Commty. for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730, 737 (1989).
Aalmuhammed, 202 F.3d at 1232. Finally, Section 102(a) of the Copyright Act and Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the U.S. Constitution both premise copyright protection on authorship. Therefore, not only does the majority decline to apply the most relevant precedent in this circuit on the question before it, it also reads the authorship requirement out of the Copyright Act and the Constitution.
The majority lauds an actress’s creative role in a film, maj. op. at 8, but the practical impact of its decision must not be ignored. Garcia’s role in the film is minimal. Yet the majority concludes that she somehow created a work Congress intended to protect under the Copyright Act. Considering the number of contributors who inject the same or a greater amount of creativity into a film, the majority’s omission of any inquiry into authorship indeed creates “an impenetrable thicket of copyright.” Maj. op. at 12. Meanwhile, though Aalmuhammed’s interpretation of the Copyright Act has been debated in academic circles, “it adopts a standard that promotes clarity in the motion picture industry.” Lee, Entertainment and Intellectual Property Law § 12:7.
For preemption purposes, the courts generally agree that “the scope of the subject matter of copyright law is broader than the protection it affords.” Montz v. Pilgrim Films & Television, Inc., 649 F.3d 975, 979 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc); see U.S. ex rel Berge v. Bd. of Trs. of Univ. of Ala., 104 F.3d 1453, 1463 (4th Cir. 1997). In other words, the subject matter underlying a state law claim preempted by the Copyright Act may nevertheless not be protected by the Copyright Act. By implication, subject matter supporting a non-preempted state law claim is definitely not protected by the Copyright Act. A number of cases from this circuit discuss subject matter akin to an acting performance and prove useful on the question of fixation.
The subject matter in Jules Jordan and Laws concerned entire copyrighted works—video and music recordings. Differently, Midler involved the imitation of a singer’s voice. Combined, these cases show that, just as the singing of a song is not copyrightable, while the entire song recording is copyrightable, the acting in a movie is not copyrightable, while the movie recording is copyrightable.
Just as “an actor does far more than speak words on a page,” maj. op. at 8, so too does a vocalist. Indeed, one might say that otherwise, “every schmuck” is a vocalist, “because everyone . . . knows how to read.” Id. (quoting Sanford Meisner & Dennis Longwell, Sanford Meisner on Acting 178 (1987)) (quotation marks omitted). An actress like Garcia makes a creative contribution to a film much like a vocalist’s addition to a musical recording. Garcia did not write the script; she followed it. Garcia did not add words or thoughts to the film. She lent her voice to the words and her body to the scene. Her creativity came in the form of facial expression, body movement, and voice. Similarly, a singer’s voice is her personal mobilization of words and musical notes to a fluid sound. Inflection, intonation, pronunciation, and pitch are the vocalist’s creative contributions. Yet, this circuit has determined that such, though perhaps creative, is too personal to be fixed. See Midler, 849 F.2d at 462.
Id. at 751–52 (internal citations omitted). Though “[n]o one of these factors is determinative,” id. at 752, the hiring party’s control “is the central inquiry here.” JustMed, Inc. v. Byce, 600 F.3d 1118, 1125 (9th Cir. 2010).
The work for hire doctrine “is important in the analysis of motion picture authorship because in the United States most contributions to a motion picture are created as works made for hire.” Dougherty, Not a Spike Lee Joint?, 49 UCLA L. Rev. at 238. Here, Garcia conceded in her complaint and affidavit that Youssef “managed all aspects of production,” controlling both the manner and means of making the film, including the scenes featuring Garcia. Further, this “central” factor is not the only one supporting a work for hire finding here. The bulk of the other factors also suggest that Garcia is an employee. Youssef provided the instrumentalities and tools, dictated the filming location, decided when and how long Garcia worked, and was engaged in the business of film making at the time. Additionally, Garcia did not hire or pay assistants. Contrary to the majority’s conclusion, maj. op. at 12–14, the facts and law do not clearly favor finding that Garcia was not working for hire.
Indeed, the district court’s application of the law to the facts of this case here was not an abuse of discretion. A “[p]laintiff’s long delay before seeking a preliminary injunction implies a lack of urgency and irreparable harm.” Oakland Tribune, Inc. v. Chronicle Publ’g Co., 762 F.2d 1374, 1377 (9th Cir. 1985). The district court gave significant weight to Garcia’s delay in filing suit, even given Garcia’s explanation for her delay. See maj. op. at 16–17. This is not illogical or implausible. Were Garcia really trying to protect her purported copyright interest in her acting performance, one would expect her to have brought this action immediately after learning of the alleged infringing behavior. Considering “[t]he relevant harm is the harm that . . . occurs to the parties’ legal interests,” Garcia has failed to explain her delay in terms of harm to her alleged copyright interest. See Salinger v. Colting, 607 F.3d 68, 81 & n.9 (2d Cir. 2010) (“[T]he justification of the copyright law is the protection of the commercial interest of the artist/author. It is not to coddle artistic vanity or to protect secrecy, but to stimulate creation by protecting its rewards.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
Rather than focusing on the logic or plausibility of the district court’s decision, the majority substitutes its own explanation of why Garcia’s delay should not be held against her. Maj. op. at 16–18. However, the weight attached by the district court to certain facts when measuring irreparable harm is not for this court to second guess. See Earth Island Inst. v. Carlton, 626 F.3d 462, 475 (9th Cir. 2010).
In its basis concerning the balance of the equities, the majority discusses Youssef’s reproachable conduct. Maj. op. at 18–19. However, Youssef is not a party to this appeal, and Google was not a party to any of Youssef’s actions.
Thus, the law and facts do not clearly demonstrate how granting a preliminary injunction in Garcia’s favor would serve the public interest.
 Although Garcia’s suit also named the film’s producers, only Google, which owns YouTube, answered the complaint.
 The dissent suggests that we must defer to the district court’s statement that “the nature of [Garcia’s] copyright interest is not clear.” But we defer to a lower court’s decision, not its equivocation.
It’s worth noting what the district court’s three-page order doesn’t do: It doesn’t decide whether Garcia has a copyright interest in her performance, whether her performance is a “work,” whether Garcia is the “author” of her performance or whether her performance is a work for hire. Nor does it address the balance of the equities or the public interest, despite the fact that a district court must “weigh in its analysis the public interest implicated by [an] injunction, as Winter now requires.” Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1138 (9th Cir. 2009).
 Neither party raised the issue of whether the author of a dramatic performance must personally fix his work in a tangible medium. Because the question is not properly before us, we do not decide it. The parties are free to raise it in the district court on remand.
 Our decision today does not “read the authorship requirement out of the Copyright Act and the Constitution.” Dissent 28. An author “in a constitutional sense” is one “‘to whom anything owes its origin; originator; maker.’” Feist Publ’ns, 499 U.S. at 346 (quoting Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony, 111 U.S. 53, 58 (1884)). In other words, the creator of copyrightable artistic expression is an author. Which is why, for example, Sinéad O’Connor can claim a copyright in her performance of “Nothing Compares 2 U” even though the song was written by Prince.
 Neither party claims that Garcia signed a work for hire agreement. In the district court, Google produced an agreement, purportedly signed by Garcia, that transferred all of her rights in her performance to the film’s producers. Garcia responded by submitting the declaration of a handwriting expert opining that Garcia’s signature had been forged. The district court didn’t address the agreement or its authenticity.
 Construing such implied licenses narrowly would also undermine our joint authorship jurisprudence. Most actors don’t qualify as joint authors. See Aalmuhammed, 202 F.3d at 1232–33. Yet, if any actor who doesn’t like the final version of a movie could keep it from being released, he’d have more control over the film than a joint author. See 1 Nimmer on Copyright § 6.10[A][a], at 6–36 (“[A] joint owner may exploit the work himself, without obtaining the consent of the other joint owners.”).
 Contrary to the dissent’s suggestion, Garcia’s declaration doesn’t establish that the film has been “widely discussed and disseminated.” Dissent 36. It states only that Garcia reached out to the media to let the world know that she “d[id] not condone the film.” We reject the dissent’s uncharitable argument that Garcia should be penalized for attempting to protect her life and reputation by distancing herself from “Innocence of Muslims.” We also reject Google’s preposterous argument that any harm to Garcia is traceable to her filing of this lawsuit. Any publicity generated by Garcia’s lawsuit is a necessary product of her attempt to protect herself and her legal rights after Google refused to do so.
 Concurrent with this opinion, we have issued an order directing Google to take down all copies of “Innocence of Muslims” from YouTube and any other platforms within its control and to take all reasonable steps to prevent further uploads. This temporary injunction shall remain in place until the district court is able to enter a preliminary injunction consistent with our opinion.
 As this is the relevant standard of review, the district court’s application of it is hardly “equivocation.” See maj. op. at 6 n.2. Furthermore, the amended portions of the majority opinion only confirm that the law and facts do not clearly favor Garcia: “Nothing we say today precludes the district court from concluding that Garcia doesn’t have a copyrightable interest, or that Google prevails on any of its defenses.” Maj. op. at 11. Where the law and facts must clearly favor Garcia in order for her to prevail, the majority’s equivocation cements its error.
 The majority relies solely on a showing of originality to conclude Garcia has a copyrightable interest in her acting performance, maj. op. at 8 (citing Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 345 (1991)), but the Constitution and the Copyright Act require much more.
 Furthermore, Garcia’s interest in her acting performance may best be analyzed as a joint work with Youssef, considering she relied on Youssef’s script, equipment, and direction. See 17 U.S.C. § 101 (“A ‘joint work’ is a work prepared by two or more authors with the intention that their contributions be merged into inseparable or interdependent parts of a unitary whole.”).
 The majority opinion cannot coexist with this statement. See maj. op. at 8.
 The majority’s sole reliance on Feist Publications to conclude that an acting performance is copyrightable, maj. op. at 8–9, gives insufficient weight to the constitutional and statutory authorship requirement. In Feist Publications, the specific question was not of authorship but of originality. See 499 U.S. at 347.
 The majority opinion dismisses the line of copyright preemption precedent. Maj. op. at 9 (“Midler isn’t a copyright case at all—it’s a right of publicity case that happens to discuss copyright in the context of preemption.”). However, these cases feature the same judges interpreting the same Copyright Act, whether the question is one of copyright infringement or copyright preemption. Thus, the majority’s distinction is without difference; it fails to overcome the fact that subject matter underlying a non-preempted state law claim, like that in Midler, is clearly without the Copyright Act’s protection. See Montz, 649 F.3d at 979.
 This is not the case where an independently authored clip is used in a film, as in Effects Assocs., 908 F.2d at 557–58. Rather, this analogy assumes facts similar to the instant case: an actress acting out a script she did not write under the direction of someone else who provides all of the instruments, tools, and leadership.
 The majority’s amended opinion also attempts to hedge its conclusion that Garcia has a copyright interest in her acting performance by avoiding counter arguments it failed to address, because they were not raised by the parties. Maj. op. at 11, 19. Yet, the majority could consider these arguments sua sponte “under exceptional circumstances, where substantial public interests are involved, or where to not do so would be unduly harsh to one or both of the parties.” United States v. Hoyt, 888 F.2d 1257, 1258 (9th Cir. 1989). The majority’s failure to even engage this inquiry, instead quickly dismissing arguments against its view, confirms its error.
 While the majority may dispute which person was actually directing the film, it cannot overcome Garcia’s own admissions in her complaint that substantiate these facts; she was not in control.

References: § 512
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 6
 v. 
 § 101
 v. 
 § 102
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 101
 § 2
 § 103
 v. 
 v. 
 § 103
 v. 
 v. 
 § 107
 § 230
 v. 
 v. 
 § 106
 § 106
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 102
 v. 
 § 102
 § 102
 § 8
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 12
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 6
 v. 
 § 101
 v.