Several media groups and rights organizations have rallied behind Google, urging a federal appeals court to revisit its takedown order of the inflammatory "The Innocence of Muslims" video on YouTube.

Media groups like the Los Angeles Times, New York Times, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, and others told the Ninth US Circuit of Appeals Friday that its February decision "arguably expands the concept of copyright ownership in a manner that could allow the subjects of news coverage to exercise veto power over unflattering broadcasts" (PDF).

The case concerns an actress in the 2012 video that sparked violent protests throughout the Muslim world. The actress, Cindy Lee Garcia, urged the appeals court to remove the video after complaining that she received death threats and was fired from her work. Garcia said she was duped into being in the "hateful anti-Islamic production."

The Southern California woman believed she would be starring in an adventure film, but in the end she appeared for five seconds and asked: "Is your Muhammad a child molester?"

She sued Google, and the appeals court agreed that the film must be taken down or her images removed because her segment was independently copyrightable.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), American Civil Liberties Union, Public Knowledge, Center for Democracy and Technology, and the American Library Association among others weighed in as well Friday.

EFF Staff Attorney Nate Cardozo said the decision, if left to stand, "would stifle creative expression for big studios and amateur filmmakers alike. While we can understand Garcia's desire to distance herself from this film, copyright law is not designed to address the harm she suffered by suppressing the global debate on a matter of public concern."

The nation's largest federal appeals court has the option of letting its original three-judge ruling stand, rehearing the case with the same three judges, or holding another hearing before a larger, 11-judge panel.

In seeking a new hearing, Google called the court's original decision "a novel theory of copyright law" (PDF).