A federal appeals court has voted to hear the case of Google, which is trying to overthrow a decision made by the lower court ordering Google-owned YouTube to take down an anti-Muslim short film that has led to violence in the Middle East and death threats against the actors.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Pasadena, California is set to reopen the case filed against Google by actress Cindy Lee Garcia, who is claiming copyright ownership of the five-minute film and says her copyright allows her to demand that it be taken down from YouTube. The 11-judge panel convenes on Monday to listen to Google's arguments.

In February, a three-judge panel ruled 2-to-1 that Garcia had a copyright claim to the 2012 film "Innocence of Muslims" because she was misled into thinking she was acting for an entirely different film and she retains copyrights for her own artistic work.

Garcia says she was recruited for a film titled "Desert Warrior," for which she was paid $500. The movie, produced by Mark Basseley Youssef, never saw the light of day, but a five-second clip featuring Garcia was spliced over to "Innocence of Muslims" and her voice was dubbed over so that it appeared that she was asking if the prophet Muhammad was a child molester, which many in the Middle East consider blasphemous.

"These, of course, are fighting words to many faithful Muslims and, after the film aired on Egyptian television, there were protests that generated worldwide news coverage," wrote [pdf] Judge Alex Kozinski in the 9th Circuit Court's opinion.

"Garcia doesn't claim a copyright interest in 'Innocence of Muslims' itself; far from it," Kozinski added. "Instead, she claims that her performance within the film is independently copyrightable and that she retained an interest in that copyright."

Google, with the backing of other Internet and media companies and First Amendment advocates, are challenging the court's decision, saying that the film's copyright belong to Youssef alone. The California Broadcasters Association, in documents filed before the court, says not overturning the February ruling could lead to a dramatic increase in "copyright litigation initiated by performers, however miniscule their contributions to the copyrighted work."

"This decision has a real negative impact on two of the biggest industries in California, Hollywood and the Internet," says lawyer Alex Lawrence, a copyright specialist who is not involved in the case. "That's why you're seeing this outcry."

Lawrence believes the appeals court will reverse the lower court's ruling because it was reached on the basis of "sympathy."

"She got paid $500 and received death threats," he says. "Everyone feels sympathy for her, but using copyright in this way is a real problem for a lot of industries."

However, lawyer Cris Armenta, who represents Garcia, says the case is not a direct attack at Google and the Internet industry but a demand for her client's right to security.

"We look forward to continuing to advance Ms. Garcia's copyright interests, her right to be free from death threats, and her First Amendment right to be disassociated from hateful speech which she did not utter nor condone," Armenta says.