Now here's my take on this, because I think everybody is missing the point: Content hosts like Megaupload have been shut down and it started with simple complaints of "they're stealing my stuff and not doing enough to prevent users from uploading it to their website".
Veoh, Limewire That's the age old tactic against websites that host user-uploaded content: blame them for not doing enough, say that unless they monitor every single upload they are helping piracy, etc. Then these websites get shutdown, or we get laws like SOPA. So maybe FunnyJunk is simply very sensitive about The Oatmeal's accusations, and fears this might only be the first step in something bigger, where more powerful parties might get involved, and which may result in FunnyJunk's death.
In their position i. And if I were operating such a website, I would counter-attack 10 times harder if anyone came at me in any way. I think FunnyJunk has no choice: they need to send a message that going after them will not go unpunished, otherwise more parties will try coming at them. They need to intimidate. I think this might be what they're doing, and it's what I would do in their situation. Blame the copyright industry and corrupt Justice for creating this situation where content hosts need to be paranoid and watch their backs constantly and feel the need to quash any threat with a ton hammer.
I've read The Oatmeal's response to FunnyJunk's legal threat. Frankly, I think FunnyJunk has some grounds - it did appear to me that part of what The Oatmeal wrote was slander.
The process was, according to the Oatmeal, a bit complicated and The Oatmeal decided not to bother again. Here are some quotes that indicate so: "To the admin of FunnyJunk: I put together a list of all my comics which you can download here and use to remove the remainder of the stolen material.
Admins are not required to go out of their way to identify infringing content. If you want content taken off, send a DMCA notice with links to the proper content.
ALL the content. Don't expect website admins to search the web for lists of content and then to download those lists from third-parties. Almost exactly a year ago I published a blog post about my comics being stolen, re-hosted, and monetized on FunnyJunk's website. The owner of the site responded and some of the comics were taken down," Right, so according to this quote FunnyJunk was apparently not send a proper DMCA notice.
Instead The Oatmeal wrote a post on their own website, and yet FunnyJunk still did the right thing and removed the content. They took down the offending images, but since then they've practically stolen my entire website and mirrored it on FunnyJunk: " There we are: the part where FunnyJunk was contacted by the Oatmeal. Except this still doesn't sound like a proper DMCA letter was sent. So FunnyJunk was under no obligation to remove anything and on top of that, if they removed stuff based on unofficial requests, they might end up removing stuff on the request of somebody impersonating the copyright holder.
At the same time, filing a false DMCA notice is pretty bad and thus protects the recipient against false copyright claims. In fact here's the proof for that: "Should I send them a cease and desist? The Oatmeal apparently also did not tell FunnyJunk which specific images had to be removed - instead, it seems The Oatmeal expected FunnyJunk to find all of the links to Oatmeal content. Despite this, FunnyJunk, by The Oatmeal's own admission, removed some content.
We had nothing to do with it! We're innocent! And if it is untrue, then it's slander. Let me summarize what seems to have happened: 1 Oatmeal asks FunnyJunk "remove our stuff" but fails to provide links or even file a real DMCA notice. To me this seems like a simple case of a copyright holder not understanding the DMCA, not understanding that the law gives content hosts some protections, and then doing something stupid in this instance, accusing a legitimate website of committing copyright infringement.
Like I read elsewhere, if this was Youtube vs. But I guess this being The Oatmeal and the author being a "little guy" instead of a big corporation, all sympathy goes to him. As far as I know, the Oatmeal got what they deserve - they messed with a type of website that already has a lot of trouble with false accusations of piracy.
They did slander FunnyJunk, and now FunnyJunk is fighting back. Is FunnyJunk exaggerating? But it's understandable. And it doesn't change the fact that The Oatmeal messed up first. The Oatmeal is the bully. And when FunnyJunk couldn't give them satisfaction, they resorted to slander. I also want to point out that a DMCA take-down notice is a form of legal threat: when filing such a notice, it is implied that a lawsuit will follow should the DMCA notice be ignored.
And the Oatmeal did post an article in which it was considering this option. FunnyJunk over-reacted but was not way off when they said the Oatmeal wanted to sue them. Rich , 12 Jun pm. I know, reading is such an effort these days. I probably should have just written "lol go funjnk otmeel suck lol!!! What can I say, I like to be clear, concise and accurate.
I could have just given my opinion - basically that FunnyJunk was being bullied by Oatmeal, but how would that be informative to anyone if I didn't provide the evidence and facts I base this on? I took the time to write this, I can only hope those who feel like commenting on it will take the time to read it.
You could at least sign your mess like RJR so we could berate you by name. Go somewhere else if you think soft trolling works here. We can read here and we can also separate shit from gold. I don't like funnyjunk, BUT How is that relevant - what you like? Or are you trying to "FOX balance" your reply? And this is not presented as opinion but as fact. Why is that - I read it as a joke. A funny comic. Opinion, mixed with awesomeness. And here you are - stating an opinion of artists intentions as a fact.
Irony much? FunnyJunk does their best to comply Really? Admin posted lies to their forums after Oatmeal first post. Backlash from funnyjunk users. Oatmeal posts links into a reply. FunnyJunk removes them and just that and them replies that it infrigment is not true - these links are dead!
You're putting a lot of lipstick onto a very ugly pig. Well, two out of three's not bad. Niall profile , 13 Jun am. You make a good point, I wasn't aware you had to register to be covered. I'm reconsidering my position now, FunnyJunk should probably have registered to begin with. I'm curious to know why they didn't. Another thing I'd like to know: in what sense are you outside of the law if you don't register with the copyright office, exactly? Does that mean your website is automatically illegal and should be taken down?
Does it mean you just lose all protections against copyright claims i. It means that you do not have automatic immunity from copyright infringement charges. It does not mean that you are guilty of infringement. You can still raise any and all other defenses to copyright infringement fair use, etc. In fact, if the only thing you did was not register a DMCA agent, but followed the law in every other way, the judge will probably find you innocent anyway.
See the Rapidshare case. I don't know why anyone would risk it, however, especially if they're a U. This is exactly what I've been trying to point out as well.
Noah Callaway , 12 Jun pm. I disagree in your assertion that The Oatmeal is the bully. Still, similarities certainly exist. Content owners have long complained that the DMCA requires them to do too much work policing their own content, especially when other users can simply upload more clips as old ones are taken down.
But the difference here is the smaller scale of the dispute, and the general lack of lawyers. These kinds of small skirmishes will help to create a set of social norms around content production and use on the Internet—which may be just as important as IP laws and court cases when it comes to shaping people's behavior.
Goliath or Goliath vs. Goliath affairs. By the same token, many entirely legitimate online services face legal uncertainty. And sometimes the best way to determine what those expectations are is to pay attention to situations like this one and not just the high-profile cases making their way through the appellate process. As a bonus, the dispute here is more colorful than those high-profile lawsuits and is refreshingly full of the plain speech so often obfuscated by legal filings and public relations needs.
Update : In the comments section of his blog yesterday, Inman added a brief update: "The owner of FunnyJunk made it so the site changes all instances of 'The Oatmeal' to 'the fag,' and none of the stolen material I mentioned was taken down.
You must login or create an account to comment. Skip to main content The Oatmeal bumper sticker by The Oatmeal. This Oatmeal comic was so long we had to break it up just to fit it on the page in a sane fashion.
Or from NSFW photoshopping political figures you don't particularly care for to telling the Washington Post "I think satirical content is fine, but him accusing my mother of bestiality is revolting, and I will not forgive it. Wow Ann. That site has one of the most obnoxious designs I've seen. Judging by that and the American Buddha site, The pair lack a sense of aesthetics.
I mean, I think some pretty annoying stuff is cool and fun like random color changing text but before publishing something for the public I make sure it isn't physically painful to the average person. If your purposes require the aid of others, assume that they have their own uses for their time and energy, and plan on requesting their assistance in exchange for your own. He's taken down the email link with his original email address in an attempt to "revalidate" the idea that nobody could have gotten that email addy save for twitter… which would have done something if I didn't still have a copy of his free Sex.
The need to preserve evidence does not mean you need to keep it public. IANAL and only been to the site a couple of times before this dust-up, but I'm hooked on watching the slow-motion train wreck. Avoid threatening harsh consequences, and never make a threat you lack the means or will to accomplish. Refrain from forcing others into submission, because the victory will be temporary and the resentment long-lasting. Well in terms of the code for it, that has been "destroyed" but I see your point in that he'd have to take the site down to preserve the page and protect the data.
That was supposed to display the source, which has the mailto removed. But since you'd be looking at something that's not there, it's not really necessary. W Ross: thats not destruction. Destruction is if he didn't keep a copy someplace else of the pre-change version, AND if he denies that the pre-change version exists. Its perfectly allowable to throw the public facing site down the memory hole as long as he keeps copies on his own system.
The remarkable thing is he's being surprisingly slow about it. The damage has been done:. So the "my email is a magic, secret, special email" is disproven either way with the screenies. It's also in the Sex. I was trying to find someone with a grammarly account so they could run the manuscript for plagarism :. Don't forget you can use Wayback as well to pull copies of archived web pages. The wikilink provides the necessary instructions on how.
Ross — I've a friend with a grammerly account — she teaches at a University and is always having to check plagarism on student papers. Let me know if and when anything needs to be checked.
Email willrosswriter AT gmail DOT com and I'll throw it over to you, then she's just got to feed it into the machine and it'll run it. But don't tell anyone what my email is cause I'm the internet writer and it's super secret and I haven't shared it anywhere ever. It's a long shot and not exactly related but I'm curious as to how slipshod he actually is they seem to have utter contempt for copywrite, and if that's true there will be a lot of near copy sentances and junk.
So if he claims that, then hands it out, does that show anything at all- or is it just ironic and hilarious? I already site vacuumed ragingblog. Stupid point, but does he even have standing to bring an action against the charities and to force a charitable trust?
I'm not in California but my guess is that an action like that is usually enforceable by the Atty Gen of the State or a state officer. Just sayin. This Carreon guy sounds amazingly similar to Brett Kimberlin… minus the bombing spree…. Chris R — The Google letters are really the best of them all. The level of self importance and complete lack of understanding over how search engine indexing works necessary for someone to send those letters and think anyone at Google could give a crap is beyond measure.
This information is readily available to the public I doubt he could remove it from their archive even if he tried. Not sure how long it has been there though. WilliamC It all helps. Good save. I wonder if Charles realizes that a simple crawl of his website wit a bit of regular expression magic reveals about 10 email addresses before my script ran into socket errors , of which two appear to belong to him.
Just a fun reminder of some of the funniest at least in my opinion comments and excerpts from Inman and Carreon left here on all 4 threads dedicated to this topic. The really crazy ones do it with an incoherent pleading. I hope that the reporter merely got the story wrong, because if not, that's more fucked up than a rhino raping a chinchilla while dressed up in unicorns' undergarments.
Since no one else has answered you: It's a reference to an interview Inman once gave. He was asked about how he dealt with criticism. Inman responded that, when he used to work for other people, he tried to be diplomatic and non-confrontational.
Now that he is basically self-employed, he's… less so. Rather, he's quite willing to open up a stream of invective at his critics — empty "Hilter's porta-potty" as it were. A porta-potty, if you don't know, is a name for a small, portable, chemical toilet, used by campers. It will store the waste, and can have nezyes added to help break it down, but eventually you have to empty the "black water".
He's going to try to make Twitter and ArsTechnica give up anonymous user information. Will that require new filings? Based on one of his other tweets and comments his wife is also making, they seem to believe that Inman is actually paying, as in cutting checks, to people who are harassing him.
Wonder if that will be brought up at some point in the course of this complaint? That original drawing might be worth something after all this. If he wants to distance himself from Carreon gracefully, he could auction it off and give the proceeds to charity. I could be completely wrong here but why is Carreon trying to charge Inman by Californean law when Inman lives in Washington?
TESS is a dull girl, but she's remarkably honest and often informative. If you go to the simple search page and look for the wordmark "FunnyJunk," you can tie Carreon to the Nevada corporation. He's the attorney listed on the wordmark filing. I hope this helps. US The 9th Circuit? CC did not choose a friendly venue.
Also, Charles' email is listed on the CA bar website where it's public disclosure is not legally required…. Almost , attorneys are eligible to practice law in California. Many attorneys share the same names.
All discipline reports are taken from State Bar Court documents and should be read carefully for names, ages, addresses and bar numbers. Read the Discipline Key for an explanation of the different levels of disciplinary action.
Use Attorney Search to check an attorney's official bar membership record. Carreon, who is licensed in both California and Oregon, was disciplined in Oregon for practicing without a license in Canada. He represented a U. As counsel for the company, he held in trust settlement proceeds from a litigation matter. He knew or should have known that the company disputed whether he was entitled to payment for the lease as a reimbursable expense.
The Oregon order found that Carreon violated his duty to maintain client funds in trust. The violation amounted to a violation of the California Rules of Professional Conduct. Practicing law in a jurisdiction where he was not entitled to do so also violated the California rules.
By this point it may be piling on, but his e-mail address is linked at the bottom of the American Buddha Online Library page here:. By the way, the ABOL is interesting. By establishing this part of the American Buddha website as an Oregon nonprofit, they declare ABOL as exempt under various copyright exemptions from copyright infringement, and they offer a load of stuff to download, including Carreon musical favorites like the Ramones, Joan Baez, Yoko Ono, the Dickies, and Iggy Pop.
I imagine that any rights holder who complains to the DMCA agent, Charles Carreon will probably find himself in court forthwith. Can you be your own DMCA agent?
If you declare yourself an online service provider under the DMCA, and you yourself then upload copyrighted materials, then do you get off scot free from infringement claims because you the OSP get the two-week notice period to demand to yourself in your uploader capacity to take the stuff down?
If you sue the infringer in his uploader status, does his OSP status protect him? I wonder why Mr. Carreon didn't recommend this tactic to FunnyStuff?
All they'd need to do is become a nonprofit library and they're home free … I guess the nonprofit part would not go over well with them. But, can you clarify: does that mean that if Inman would like to sue for copyright infringement, he has to first register his works? Or did you mean something else. Apologies, I wasn't very clear: I'm referring to Carreon's own actions in this, but you're right I probably was confusing it a bit with him representing Funnyjunk and him representing himself.
But from what I got from the interview, it sounded like he doesn't have a problem with copyright infringment. Though it's hard to tell if he's speaking from his POV or his client's. Is it just me or has he pulled his reply from this page? If so it is an interesting part of this story. I object. Doom and Lex Luthor would have thought things through better than this guy did, so lumping him in with supervillains is an insult to supervillains.
What I am still amazed is that Carreon hasn't sued FJ because it is one of the sources of the cancer that it is killing the internet mostly due to the M00t — a word he's fond of — that runs that site. For example, here are some quotes made by the admin when he is on his "time of the month": "how about a goodbye ban? This looks like the Streisand Effect by the sound of it.
Why Carreon headed the word of such a person with such a bad repute for his 27 years it is beyond mortals' comprehension… he also has a penchant for bestiality porn, either in photograph or drawn by hand, it is a fact from which he brags about. Carreon doesn't know about "Happy Tree Friends", and the fandom behind all of it, pfff….
It's pretty amusing that this completely insane overreaction by Carreon has probably done more damage to FunnyJunk's name than the posts by The Oatmeal. Hope he isn't expecting to retain them as a client following this. Quite recently, Admin and his internet-lawyer decided to register FunnyJunk, LLC in the glorious state of Nevada and conveniently decided to leave the list of financial officers empty until about two weeks after the deadline for submission.
After submitting the officer list, Admin pretty much doxed himself not that anyone actually cares. As of now, Admin is 27 years old. Disclosure: I'm not a lawyer, I'm Canadian pointing it out because I do have a few business law courses in me, but apart from general similarities it's not the same system and I can barely keep my eyes open after a grueling week of summer mid-terms. After reading Ken's excellent post I started to dig into a couple of links a bit more.
I got snared by the Carreon family's website, american-buddha. There is even more insane stuff posted by other Caerron family members, but that's beside the point.
I think however that regarding Charles' allegation that Ian's strips and posts depict violence, skepticism towards his claims is warranted, as at the very least he's produced questionable content himself. What really blew my mind was the huge archive of integral music albums available as direct download mp3s. Maybe the media up here biased my perception of music file sharing, but isn't the RIAA supposed to send terror squads to your door for less?
Anyway, I'm not saying that Charles owns or operates the website, nor that he put the mp3s there, but at the very least he's acting as legal consul as mentioned left and right. Within the context of the oatmeal v funnyjunk fist fight I can't overlook the similarity of the situations, where people hijack copyrighted material for their purposes. Intrigued by the disclaimer of responsibility, "ABOL is a wonderful system that enables you to enjoy copyrighted material by respecting the limitations of 17 U.
Since the notice doesn't refer to a specific section, I had to take a stab at understanding the approach. I'm guessing they are playing on article a , but I'm pretty sure the fact that each download spawns another copy puts them in breach. Also, the lays out copyright exemptions for libraries and archives. Curious, I looked more into the org, since they explain they are an Oregon non-profit.
I snickered at the first paragraph. I still don't know what I'm agreeing to. Over here in Canadaland, being a non-profit doesn't mean you can claim to be a library. You guys might have fun with that. Also, there is a two year gap in their registry, so I guess one could claim that during that period they had music up there illegally. The point of this sleep deprived barely coherent rant is that Charles has quite the artistic talent himself, and that I find the legal strategy of A-B.
It does put his strategy of defense of funnyjunk into context, as well as his understanding of the web. Carreon lists his email address in the public online member directories for the California and Oregon State Bars. Carreon's email address was entered in these attorney directories in one way and one way only: he included it himself when he filled out details for his directory listing.
It's completely optional to include one's email address, which Carreon has chosen to do. Both directories are fully accessible to the public. In fact, if somebody wanted to find the email address for a specific attorney, one of the first places to look would be the online bar directory in the state where that attorney is licensed.
In conclusion, apparently Carreon wasn't thinking straight or was lying when he falsely claimed to have never voluntarily posted his email address on the Internet.
This thing needs to be broadcasted live, or else I'm missing the only chance in my lifetime that I get to hear lawyers say "Bear Love Campaign" in a courtroom.
I think most people would be pretty happy and unhurt by running their business as a nonprofit — a nonprofit can still pay employees, and it can employ the owner. I believe there's a cap on how much they can pay, but that cap is many times the median wage. I don't see why Carreon feels that Inman's speech is actionable — if I recall the standard for libel, the statements must be defamatory AND untrue.
While there may be some debate as to whether or not Inman's statements impact Carreon's livelihood as Carreon is quite capable of making HIMSELF look like a tool without help , there can be no doubt that every word of ridicule and scorn heaped upon Carreon is accurate and well-deserved.
However, as someone who, for various sick and twisted reasons, actually enjoys reading 1st Amendment case law, it seems to me that Carreon's accusations of 'obscenity' are utterly baseless and without merit, and that he should damned well know it.
Please correct me if I'm wrong No, really — I love learning about this stuff , but I was under the impression that obscenity must be both offensive and must convey no idea in order to qualify — otherwise, it's merely offensive speech, and afforded the full protection of the 1st Amendment. You would have a hard time bringing, e. Has anyone noticed he libels Inman on his site? They include: 1. You are the new laughingstock of the Internet. And all by your own doing. Digg it reddit del.
He takes the situation to DefCon 5. We start with Matt Inman, the creator and artist behind The Oatmeal, mix in a little FunnyJunk, stir in the possibility of a lawsuit, and viola! What you end up with is a Kool-Aid that tastes good, and is very entertaining. If you don't know what's going on with the Oatmeal v. FunnyJunk you should read these articles now. Ken of Popehat. He now intents to force them to waste funds in frivolous litigation.
You can also read more about it here from the guy who got sued by some cretinous lunatic. All the blogs I've read link back to Lowering the Bar and Popehat, both legal blogs. They've stated that Carreon has no case. What Carreon needs at this point […]. Roku thinks so. What happens when you piss off the Internet? This, this, and this. From the time of the podcast recording, things have escalated and it seems that the lawyer is now […]. Het is zelfs zo dat ik in m'n vrije tijd "juridische stukken" ofja, reflecties op..
He's suing Inman. He's suing the National Wildlife Federation. He's suing the American Cancer Society. He's suing IndieGoGo. I'm suprised he's not suing FunnyJunk for good measure. PopeHat explains it all in gory details. I love this part Plaintiff is a contributor to the Bear Love campaign, and made his […]. Carreon also thought his website was being hacked.
More on this […]. For, as Ken from PopeHat. Just to name a few examples, lawsuits are used to simply harass people, destroy their livelihoods or even kill them, effects which are sometimes achieved already with the […]. Here's what little Kevin found, and told me, from CNS: 1. In that interview, Carreon used a tactic that is now typical of litigious and thin-skinned people who are introduced to the Streisand Effect — he indulged in some good old-fashioned Godwinizing and quasi-Victorian pearl-clutching and couch-fainting: I don't know if you're familiar with his cartooning—people having their heads thrown in a chipper, his character of a pterodactyl consuming blended brains with gusto—I've actually never seen anyone incite people to violence in that fashion.
Comments WOW! This is Marc Stephens-Josefph Rakofsky-love-child level crazy. Well, maybe not that crazy, but lord, it ain't sane. This guy makes Charlie Sheen sound normal. This is awesome. What are we to make of this lawsuit? And by that, I mean "how can we extend this analogy? Carreon bloviated: You're right; you haven't— and you still haven't, because that isn't "inciting people to violence.
Great googly-moogly! Batshit insane doesn't begin to cover this. The eagerness with which people will throw away a career is astounding. These are their stories. From Carreon's site — When the going gets weird the weird turn pro. He should have walked away… We would have forgotten about this douchebag laywer already… He's not walking away. This is really too bad. He can't be right in the head. Oh, ken: Maybe. I find myself sorta hoping Condoleezza Rice hires him to sue himself.
I think he'd take the job. Wow…I've never seen anyone infinity down on stupid before this. I'd like to propose "Carreon" as a new verb: Carreon Verb 1. Pardon me, he said that in an interview. Not in his complaint. Carreon really dove off the deep end on this one, hasn't he? But that's easily remedied by… filing the work with the copyright office.
I love the oatmeal, and I've been a fan for years and years. I hope he dies in a hole. Man oh man, I love butthurt. This guy is a good one, too.
Tune: Kansas's "Carry On, Wayward Son" Chorus: Carreon, you hired gun, your career is over and done, lay your stupid case to rest, don't you try no more.
To the law it seems you're totally blind, man Thought your threats would work, you must be a mad man You're hearing voices, or you're dreaming if you thought you could win Chorus Should have spoken to someone who could reason cause your logic has just zero cohesion claim you're internet lawyer, you ain't got a nano-clue In your stormy wrath of childish emotion, tossing idle threats and verbal explosions Who'll you blame for your misfortune, besides the voices in your head? Chorus Bridge: Carreon: You should always remember Carreon: You're unmasked as a puffed-up pretender When a hip blog, you bluff and bully you went viral, now you're owned Carreon, you hired gun, your career is over and done, tuck your tail between your legs, and say goodbye to the law.
If this even makes it anywhere near a court it's a travesty. And that was before this lawsuit was mentioned…. Registering it just makes it a whole lot easier. Surely there should be limits to testing the limits of sheer idiocy. Looks like Carreon has forgotten the First Rule of Holes. Double Rakofsky. I never thought I'd see it. It is my hope, and my wish for christmas, that carreon gets bitch-slapped so hard by the ACS and the NWF and Inman's lawyers that he wishes he never hung a lawyer shingle outside his cave… Bears good!
Cancer bad! Carreon worse! Washington State rules state you only need to register with the Charities Program in the Office of the Secretary of State and provide an annual solicitation report if both of the following are true: 1. Ken, to quote myself: Oh, one question, if he's filing it Pro Se, but claims that it was an act to defame "himself and his client", would this potentially get him in trouble if his client didn't authorize him to file this suit?
Oh, god, apparently Carreon lives in my city. I apologize on behalf of Tucson to everyone! Has a pterodactyl ever appeared in a court document before Friday? Douche catamaran, of course. What does that last part "injunctive or declaratory relief" mean? I'll leave it to the real lawyers to read in detail, but in just a skim… WOW.
Cameron's doubling-down on the Pterodactyl! HA, I knew it… Oh, and for the "Charity in trust" part, he wants full attorneys fees…. Oh, one thought: The BiFD claims require a conspiracy between Iman and whoever did the fake Carreon twitter account… But Twitter is notoriously good at saying FOAD to third party subpoenas, as one other little detail Carreon is going to discover going forward. Been here, done that. Good luck. Well, shit. Paragraph Carreon donated to the Bear Love charity campaign so he could sue it.
Absolutely reprehensible. Charles and Dino M. Zaffina ought create a support club for delusional whiney b! Oh, hey, ross, thanks! This is due to what appears to be a silent treatment response from Mattel from his first attempt to solicit business from Mattel by an email which stated I practice in the field of domain law, and it recently came to my attention that the EmilyDoll. Given the odd comments since August are spam-bot, we can tell how successful this was… At this point, not only do I believe that Saul Goodman is a better attorney than this guy, I now believe that Saul Goodman has better character as an attorney than this guy.
Started a Twitter hashtag game: charlescarreonnewcareers. Sarahw raises an interesting question. Has anyone identified who owns FunnyJunk? I've no idea if it was the real Tara Carreon who posted to Forbes 3 days ago as folllows: "Did it ever occur to anyone that the reason that Matt Inman is so popular is because he appeals to the degenerate forces which have made all of our lives so miserable in this world?
First Carreon insinuates WWII was caused by Walt Disney chad alan, I was wondering if anyone else would say it… And then 38 in his lawsuit states that he, himself, is a contributor to the BearLove campaign, "…Plaintiff is acting on his own behalf and to protect the rights of all other contributors to the Bear Love campaign…" I don't want him doing on thing on my behalf or bewhole.
And it takes a lot to surprise me anymore. Now, I can only guess at what happened here. The folks who FunnyJunk were probably upset that anytime you searched "FunnyJunk" on Google, a link to Inman's post popped up on the front page. So they approached a lawyer--a famous lawyer, at that--to see what their options were.
Sadly, said lawyer was apparently unfamiliar with the "Streisand Effect," in which one's attempts to suppress content result in drawing more attention to it.
Given Inman's propensity for very publicly responding to threats and criticism, this letter was a bomb that could have only exploded in FunnyJunk's faces, at least from a public relations perspective. Not only did Inman declare Carreon's claims ludicrous though his language was much more colorful , he claimed that, at the time he received the letter, FunnyJunk still hosted hundreds of images that were, in fact, comics taken from The Oatmeal.
FunnyJunk has since removed those images. Suddenly, a man whose comic title I've seen most often preceded by the words "I can't say that I'm a fan of" has transformed himself into an Internet folk hero, riding high on a tide of crowdfunded dollars and bear-love. I can't say I approve of Inman dragging FunnyJunk's hopefully non-existant mother into all this; giving birth to the site aside, she might be a perfectly lovely woman with appropriate feelings toward bears.
0コメント