Slashdot Mirror
FunnyJunk v. the Oatmeal: Copyright Infringement Complaints As Defamation
An anonymous reader writes "Funny as it might sound, FunnyJunk's threat of litigation against The Oatmeal raises a very important issue: the extent to which artists can complain in public about perceived or actual infringement of their works by user-generated content websites. Does it matter if the content creator accused the website of condoning or participating in the infringement?" The short story is this: Numerous Oatmeal comics were posted without permission to FunnyJunk; Oatmeal creator Matthew Inman lambasted FunnyJunk in the form of a blog post. FunnyJunk responded with a suit (or rather the threat of a suit) accusing Inman of willful defamation, unless he ponies up $20,000, which he doesn't plan to do.
Matthew is accepting donations, will take a picture of all his monies to send to the FunnyJunk attorneys, and will donate it all to charity.
Right now it's standing at over $100k. Go internet!
The Oatmeal was correct. All the offending links worked yesterday.
Now, FunnyFart has done some quick scrubbing.
The WWF and Cancer Society will be very pleased.
Dave Barnes 9 breweries within walking distance of my house
Pay $40,000 in damages in order to avoid a suit; then I will comply with your demand for $20,000.
I've never been to Funnyjunk before, but after this blew up, I decided I'd test out their claim about how easy it was to take down infringing images.
Naturally, these sites make it wicked easy to upload any image, taking down an obvious one would be just as simple, no? Well, in 5 minutes I found a Cyanide & Happiness comic (explosm.net). I hit the flag button and found "copyright infringement" very simple to find. "Great!" I thought, "So simple to fix this problem." Nope, that takes me to a DMCA page where I have to type in a real name, e-mail address, phone number and supporting information.
Wow.
If it's so easy to upload an image, shouldn't there be a responsibility to make it just as easy to take one down? Of course, there would be a manual review process and some countermeasures to prevent someone from flagging the whole site (which may be mostly original content, that's a separate discussion), but it should be a whole lot easier.
So far he's raised just over $100,000 for Bears Good, Cancer Bad. Also, the writeup doesn't really sum up the whole situation:
> Oatmeal's content was on FunnyJunuk
> Oatmeal asked them to remove said content, they kind of complied but not really
> Oatmeal writes blog post
> FunnyJunk threatens to sue
> Oatmeal starts campaign to raise $20,000 for Bears Good, Cancer Bad; ignores FunnyJunk threat
Some of FJ's complaints, particularly about the "attacks in your source code" part are so laughable you'd almost have to assume that this, in itself, some "funny junk" they're pulling for the lols. Do they seriously consider an ASCII pterodactyl to be a threat against FunnyJunk? Do they seriously think that the word "FunnyJunk" on a web page is taking away their status in Google's search results? FunnyJunkFunnyJunkFunnyJunkFunnyJunk Slashdot doesn't like too much repitition FunnyJunkFunnyJunkFunnyJunkFunnyJunk at least let's see if I can break it up FunnyJunkFunnyJunkFunnyJunkFunnyJunk with some text here FunnyJunkFunnyJunkFunnyJunkFunnyJunk come on, Slashdot FunnyJunkFunnyJunkFunnyJunkFunnyJunk I just *know* that this will bump FunnyJunkFunnyJunkFunnyJunkFunnyJunk your Google search results when people FunnyJunkFunnyJunkFunnyJunkFunnyJunk search for FunnyJunkFunnyJunkFunnyJunkFunnyJunk
Watch out Slashdot, FJ is coming for you next for knocking them down in Google's results ZOMGTHEINTERNETTHISISHOWITWORKS!
Ok, because you can't click links appently.
1. Oatmeal rattles dmca sabre asking for take downs of some comics, and points out many many many many many more than are infringing
2. Take down eventually occurs after much hassle
3. Oatmeal points out take down takes too long, but why not show readers whats happening anyway by linking to said site, while blogging about it
4. Google Ranks oatmeal highly due to incoming links / likes / everyone likes oatmeal!
5. FunkyJunk notice this, get lawyer.
6. FunkyJunk send nasty message asking for $20,000
7. Oatmeal posts saying, "yeah right, because you've removed all the infringing content, right?
8. FunkyJunk removes linked comics.
The question is, whos onus is it to report the infringing content when it appears to be uploaded again after being removed?
- http://www.milkme.co.uk
Welcome to the underside of the Internet, where 'LOL' is a mating call for people too stupid to find their asses with both hands and a haptic overlay for Google Maps.
I strongly suspect that the Admin of Funnyjunk would know that he'd get a harsh reaction from fans of the oatmeal. I haven't been on funnyjunk in about 6 years but I visited out of curiosity and now I'm wondering how many people will be doing the same. How many more hits has FJ got because of this?
The admin must have known that the oatmeal would never give into blackmail.
+1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
A Dallas photographer found his photo illegally being used on a bunch of websites. He filed the thousand-or-so DMCA notices to ask the photo be removed. Virtually all the websites complied except for ONE owned by Candice Schwanger, who is now suing the photographer.
Why do people like Candice/Funnyjoke think they have the right to sue people they are copying from? It's hilarious. I have the judge pounds these people into the dirt, punishes them of 50,000 dollars, and hands it to the Victim whose photos/comics were infringed upon.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
but axing them after issuing a legal threat alleging that assertions of copyright infringement were defamatory sure smells like destruction of evidence... And courts tend to take a very dim view of destruction of evidence...
So let's talk about FJ's strategy in this quagmire they've created. First it started out with a pretty innocuous (though informative) question post and there is no indication of an offensive attack between one party or the other. FJ's response to this is to respond by describing two completely different scenarios to everyone while destroying evidence. First, they contact all their users and alledge that The Oatmeal is suing FJ while in reality they fire a threat of slander and libel lawsuit at The Oatmeal. Meanwhile The Oatmeal is being harassed by FJ users who seem to be confused that this is about The Oatmeal doesn't believe FJ has any members and is really just a bot.
Basically the FJ admin and/or legal team is playing this like a money making entity would -- they're doing everything in their power to make users see one situation and the original content creators face another situation. And that's what happens when revenues are threatened, bad people get creative in bad ways and it usually has a very bad effect but is effective nonetheless. I hope The Oatmeal sticks to his guns on this one -- he's definitely in the right and he's definitely tackling a problem that persists on imgur, FunnyJunk and a number of other sites (yes, even YouTube).
My work here is dung.
This, "we can post what we want," business goes both ways. FunnyJunk may not have any legal obligation to remove the offending content, but Inman was not lying when he posted his criticism of FunnyJunk. Everything he said was true. His opinion was that these facts made FunnyJunk unethical. He has a right to his opinion and he has the right to express it. FunnyJunk could have just left it at that, "Oh somebody on the internet doesn't like us, and that somebody has a large audience." Instead they decided to threaten to sue for defamation. Here's a hint guys. Defamation suits only work when someone is lying about you. It's like slander and libel. You can't sue somebody for laying out a set of facts and then expressing their opinion about those facts. That's not defamation. Somebody needs to go back to lawyer school.
You forgot 3.5, in which the FunnyJunk admin sends an email to all FunnyJunk users and tells them that Inman is trying to shut the site down. He then encourages them to harass Inman via email and Facebook.
It's an interesting claim.
If we swap out FunnyJunk and Oatmeal for YouTube and RIAA, most of the details stay the same.
Could YouTube sue the RIAA for saying that YouTube encourages piracy?
At what point is a site operator responsible for the content their users upload?
William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
when you bad mouth Edison.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on