backtop


Print 32 comment(s) - last by Belard.. on Jun 26 at 10:35 AM


  (Source: The Oatmeal)
Supposedly "funny" site, can't take a joke, tries to block $210,000 donation to charity

A website called Funny Junk has gained in popularity in recent years as a place for people to post random images they find on the internet.  Its owners profit off ads placed to monetize their site's role as a repository of funny.  The only problem is that many of the images posted (thousands) were web comics stolen (taken without permission) from hard-working artists' sites.

The Oatmeal, a rather famous web-comic took the site to task, which led to Funny Junk admins posting a frantic forums post last year that somehow jumped to the conclusion that The Oatmeal artist Matt Inman was planning to sue.  Subsequently an email/Facebook flame war erupted between fans of the two sites.

Then in a shocking twist Funny Junk "lawyered up", hiring celebrity lawyer Charles Carreon.  Mr. Carreon sent Mr. Inman a legal threat demanding $20,000 USD and an apology -- all for calling out Funny Junk for its infrigement.

Matt Inman responded by founding a charity campaign entitled "Bear Love Good" and promising to give not a single red penny to Mr. Carreon, but $20,000 instead to charity.  But he promised, "I'm going to take a photo of the raised money.  I'm going to mail you that photo, along with this drawing of your mom seducing a Kodiak bear."

The Oatmeal threat
The Oatmeal received a threat letter from Funny Junk's lawyer. [Image Source: The Oatmeal]

Mr. Inman quickly collected the $20,000 used charity open community platform IndieGogo, with the proceeds going towards the American Cancer Society and the National Wildlife Federation.

This outraged Funny Junk's owners and Mr. Carreon.  They filed a lawsuit against IndieGogo, Mr. Inman, the American Cancer Society, and the National Wildlife Federation, seeking to prevent the charity donations from going through.  Mr. Carreon claims the charity was not properly registered with the state of California and should not be allowed to operate.

He also claims Mr. Inman defamed him and his clients, commenting, "I think satirical content is fine, but him accusing my mother of bestiality is revolting, and I will not forgive it."

But apparently Mr. Carreon thinks its okay to post crude, explicit Photoshop cartoons of George W. Bush and Condoleeza Rice having sex [NSFW].  He and his wife and posted this and several other images.  And for the record, Mr. Inman never specified the ursine seduction to be sexual in nature, and for the record he says the picture was of the Funny Junk administrator's mother, not Mr. Carreon's mother.

And Mr. Inman now has some high profile help defending himself from Funny Junk and Mr. Carreon in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco).  The Electronic Frontier Foundation has announced it will be joining Mr. Inman's lawyers.  

Cancer Patient
Funny Junk and its lawyer are suing to try to deny the ACS $100,000 to try to cure cancer.
[Image Source: Stage Mom]

EFF Intellectual Property Director Corynne McSherry calls the lawsuit "bizarre" and comments, "This lawsuit is a blatant attempt to abuse the legal process to punish a critic.  We're very glad to help Mr. Inman fight back."

This type of lawsuit is commonly referred to as a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP), according to the EFF, and is a well known censorship tactic.

As publicity for the case has exploded the charity's collections have soared to $210,000+ USD.  A donate link can be found here.  The Oatmeal/Mr. Inman urges his fans and readers to donate to charity if they're upset about the case, not take their rage out on Funny Junk or Mr. Carreon.

Sources: Bear Love Good, The Oatmeal [1], [2]



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Just to correct a few errors
By swagmonkey on 6/24/2012 2:38:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
How could you NOT know the links are STILL on your site?


By choosing not to look. Now, one could say in some cases that it would be unreasonable to expect FunnyJunk to search its entire archives for anything that came from elsewhere, especially if they wouldn't recognize all of it. However, in the case of an ongoing legal battle, any reasonable person would check for Oatmeal comics carefully before making a claim that they were gone. If he's ignorant, he's willfully ignorant.


By Cheesew1z69 on 6/24/2012 3:18:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If he's ignorant, he's willfully ignorant.
This...


RE: Just to correct a few errors
By rs2 on 6/25/2012 9:00:08 PM , Rating: 2
But how do you check for them "carefully"? For instance, suppose that the site hosts a relatively modest archive containing 10 GB of images. Assuming an average size of 250 KB per image that would mean that there are 42,000 images to sift through (with more being added constantly). How would you go about finding a few dozen Oatmeal comics within that haystack, if you don't have someone pointing out exactly where they are? Keep in mind that these images are probably sitting around on some headless Linux box (as regular files in the filesystem if the guy is lucky, or as BLOBS in some database if he is not), so it's not like you can just pull them up as thumbnails and skim through them (you'd have to export the entire dataset to some local box first). And that probably wouldn't be a practical way to sift through tens of thousands of images anyways.

And how do you keep your site operating while at the same time preventing troublemakers from re-uploading the offending content? Perhaps you switch to a moderated-content model where every upload needs to be reviewed and approved before it goes live. But that's impractical for larger sites, and provides a poor experience for end users as well.

So I don't think the guy's task is as easy as you imply, or that it's a foregone conclusion that he's being willfully ignorant. Does Google know where to find every potentially infringing video on Youtube? Probably not. Does that make them "willfully ignorant" of infringements that occur on Youtube? Not really. To be willfully ignorant they would have to get a complaint that says "the video at this specific URL infringes upon my copyright, please take it down" and then not even bother looking at the URL. There's no other practical way for them to find infringing videos inside of their giant mountain of content.


"If you can find a PS3 anywhere in North America that's been on shelves for more than five minutes, I'll give you 1,200 bucks for it." -- SCEA President Jack Tretton











botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki