Possibly NSFW: Anyone else following the BearLove sillyness?

[pete]

Starts here: FunnyJunk is threatening to file a federal lawsuit against me unless I pay $20,000 in damages - The Oatmeal

Legal writeup begins here (involves some swearing): FunnyJunk Issues Bogus Legal Threat To The Oatmeal, Hilarity Ensues | Popehat

 

Ars coverage: The Oatmeal vs. FunnyJunk: webcomic copyright fight gets personal | Ars Technica

 

TLDR:

1) Streisand effect invoked.

2) Streisand effect extended by "Internet Lawyer".

3) "Internet Lawyer" goes full Streisand.

4) Everyone runs out of popcorn.

[ZeroHour]

Yeh I have been following it myself, the Streisand effect is in full force lol.

[AMLinington]

Yeah I've seen some stuff about it but all the legalese is a bit over my head. From what I've seen and understood, FunnyJunk are in the wrong here as they have taken content that is presumably subject to intellectual copyright and normal copyright laws and edited it to remove the copyright information. This in itself is surely an infringement? Hosting of Oatmeal content aside, even if they had a point about hosting content from the Oatmeal, and even if the Oatmeal doesn't have a right to dictate removal of content on an ad-infested site, surely the removal of citation alone is enough to overturn this?

 

Edited to add: User uploaded content is no excuse. It is the sites responsibility to moderate its content and ensure it remains within the law. It is even MORE unacceptable to then defame the originator of the work... Should he feel so inclined (and I'm certain some lawyer somewhere will step forward) I would not be surprised to find that Inman (aka The Oatmeal) wins his case.

Edited June 18, 2012 by AMLinington

[pete]

Edited to add: User uploaded content is no excuse. It is the sites responsibility to moderate its content and ensure it remains within the law. It is even MORE unacceptable to then defame the originator of the work... Should he feel so inclined (and I'm certain some lawyer somewhere will step forward) I would not be surprised to find that Inman (aka The Oatmeal) wins his case.

 

WRT Funnyjunk and user-generated content, the best part is that their DMCA agent isn't registered with the copyright office, so they have no protection from the "hey it was our users" defence.

 

As Oatmeal's lawyer noted here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/96850920/FunnyJunk-The-Oatmeal-Response

 

It is also possible that FunnyJunk hasn’t complied withthe requirements of the DMCA and thus cannot take advantage of its protections. Among otherthings, the DMCA requires a service provider to designate an agent, provide contactinformation, and file a notice of designation with the Copyright Office. Without taking a positionon the other issues, I’ll note simply that FunnyJunk does not appear to have a notice ofdesignation on file with the Copyright Office. This alone would be enough to undermine anydefense of immunity to claims of infringement that The Oatmeal (or third parties) may assert.

 

That's a schoolboy error.

Edited June 18, 2012 by pete

[Garacesh]

It's nice to see all this money getting raised (and FunnyJunk getting their come-uppance), but easily the best part of BrearLove Good Cancer Bad is the picture of the lawyers mother attempting to seduce a bear xD

[X-13]

the picture of the lawyers mother attempting to seduce a bear xD

 

It's not the lawyers mother....

 

It's FunnyJunk's mother.

 

 

 

TBH, this is beyond stupid. This all started because Inman wanted credit for his work.

 

Not takedowns, not compensation... Just credit.

 

FunnyJunk are acting like babies. For example, they changed all references to "The Oatmeal" to something which escapes me at present, but would be inappropriate anyway.

 

 

 

Also, the lawyer donated to Bearlove good, Cancer bad.

[AMLinington]

Ha ha haaaa I've just caught up with the latest 'twists and turns' in this case. The lawyer is a tw*t (then again, aren't they all?), although the point about unsolicited fundraising may be valid but it seems neither the plaintiff or his client are fully cognisant of the context of state laws. I really think FJ and Carreon are going to be pwned. They may win minor victories in the form of a point being conceeded here and there, but overall they've dug themselves a hole they will struggle to get out of. I am surprised that Carreon is risking so much reputation with the frivalous suit though.

 

Although is it just me or does the letter from the Oatmeal lawyer sound 'weak' by using statments like 'Everybody knows....' - this cannot be backed up with verifiable fact so IMO phrases like this do not belong in legal documentation. Then again, perhaps I'm too conditioned into 'proving' and 'supporting' every statement in academic writing (blah blah blah in accordance with Heeby & Jeeby, 2009. Etc etc etc as postulated by J.Bloggs, 2011 (also, I know the citations are incorrect, I just cbb to check the syntax))? That being said, there are a great deal more citations than the original letter - guess someone didn't do their homework. lol.

 

I love that this has exploded - it's so much fun to lurk around and laugh at the trolls.

[X-13]

the point about unsolicited fundraising may be valid

 

It isn't. Inman isn't making ANY money from the fundraising, his argument is invalid. 100% of the money raised is going to charity.

 

He's even adding another couple of charities because it's gone over by so much. [Last I saw it was nearly $200k.]

[AMLinington]

I've just got down to page 5 of the response letter:

 

"At the end of the day, a lawsuit against TheOatmeal in this situation is just a really bad idea."

 

This is from a LAWYER? REALLY?

 

@X-13 don't forget that laws about fundraising are many and complex and Oatmeal has essentially said 'If you donate to the litigation fund, I will photograph the money and give it to charities' but he is not a registered fundraiser for these charities so it is the internet equivalent of one of us going out into the street rattling a tin and saying 'I'm not homeless but if you donate to me, I'll give the money to a homeless shelter' without actually being affiliated with or registered as a legitimate fundraiser. Soliciting others to donate is probably legislated in some way, and I believe that Oatmeal is probably walking a narrow line here and the plaintiffs lawyer MAY have a point. But I don't know enough about US fundraising law to speculate. As I said, it MAY be valid. Equally it may not. I don't know.

Edited June 19, 2012 by AMLinington

[X-13]

@AMLightfoot The Lawyer is arguing that as they aren't registered with [whoever], that the fundraising is illegal.

 

He's forgetting/ignoring the fact that that only applies if they are fundraising FOR PROFIT.

 

Inman isn't making anything out of this, therefore his argument is invalid.

 

 

Whether or not there is another aspect at play, I can't comment on. But as for this specific part, it's carp, and the lawyer more than likely knows it. [if he doesn't, he needs to learn how to read.]

 

 

 

Disclaimer: I am not, nor have I ever been, a lawyer.

Edited June 19, 2012 by X-13

[AMLinington]

To be fair, it seems that FJ seems to be making a lot of incorrect assumptions and basing the suit on these - they are assuming profit is made from the fundraising, but they have no statement of proof (although I know that in the UK, even non-profit fundraising must be done with licenses and registrations and stuff), they are also claiming protection from some government department that they themselves have not correctly registered with. That hole is getting deeper methinks. Will be interesting to see how it plays out and who 'wins'. My money is on Oatmeal tbh.

[X-13]

Will be interesting to see how it plays out and who 'wins'. My money is on Oatmeal tbh.

 

Regardless of the question, the answer is always ponies. [or some variation of ponies.]

 

 

Therefore, the winner is ponies.

 

 

I was going to write a long rant, while also trying to drop in as many fish puns as I could, but I really can't be bothered.

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]14364[/ATTACH]

[CHR1S]

One thing that gets me, this seems so stupid and OTT that its a publicity stunt, albeit one that is benefiting charities.

 

The world is full of idiots and that FJ lot along with Charles Carreon could fall into that category!

[X-13]

The world is full of idiots and that FJ lot along with Charles Carreon could fall into that category!

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]14372[/ATTACH]

 

Seems appropriate.

[X-13]

This is getting redonkulous...

 

 

So, apparently, according to Carreon, Disney is responsible for Hiroshima.

 

"It might not have seemed very dehumanizing when Walt Disney made Japanese people look silly with buck teeth and big glasses who could not pronounce their 'R's or their 'L's," he said. "But it was dehumanizing, and the purpose was to direct evil intentions against them, which ultimately resulted in the only nuclear holocaust that ever occurred in the history of humanity. I don't think Truman would have ever done that if we hadn't so dehumanized the enemy. When you dehumanize someone, that is the first step to inciting people."

 

 

And what's happening to him is exactly the same... Yup, he's comparing himself to [Japanese] holocaust victims.

 

 

Everything this guy says just make me want to slap him...

[Garacesh]

This is getting redonkulous...

So, apparently, according to Carreon, Disney is responsible for Hiroshima.

And what's happening to him is exactly the same... Yup, he's comparing himself to [Japanese] holocaust victims.

Everything this guy says just make me want to slap him...

 

Yup, read this one on the bus on the way to work. My god, this man is an idiot. He's cut off his own nose, shot himself in the foot and now he's tarring-and-feathering himself. He's either a douchebag-idiot combo of incomprehensible levels, or the most ingenious troll.

[X-13]

or the most ingenious troll.

 

Not really... A good troll wouldn't leave themselves open to a defamation suit.

 

 

Disney could legally knee-cap him.

[localzuk]

I don't get it. A parody account is protected in the US as fair use and freedom of speech, so it'd not get further than that in court.

 

All his other readings of the law are flawed too - the fundraising is not for profit - as it is going to 2 charities who are also not for profit.

 

Inman hasn't incited anyone to do anything other than donate.

 

So, what's this lawyer playing at??

[Garacesh]

Touché.

 

I think he's just being too big-headed and stubborn to back down. Sort of 'I'm in too deep, might as well see it through til' the end' sort of thing..

 

The thing is.. If he 'wins', he'll pave the way for hundreds of companies demanding that people who openly criticise them take their articles/pages down, due to inciting others to take illegal action. 'Twill be a sad day for the interwebs if he 'wins'.

 

Either way, a butt-tonne of money has been raised for charity, so silver lining and all..

[sonofsanta]

Not really... A good troll wouldn't leave themselves open to a defamation suit.

 

 

Disney could legally knee-cap him.

 

Not really defamation when Disney really did make such caricatures. Unless, of course, Carreon wins against Inman and makes it a litigious matter to criticize someone. He's built himself a bit of a Catch-22 there, to be honest.

 

As a lawyer who has been involved with the internet for quite some time, he really is displaying a remarkable lack of insight and intelligence about this whole matter.

[X-13]

The thing is.. If he 'wins', he'll pave the way for hundreds of companies demanding that people who openly criticise them take their articles/pages down, due to inciting others to take illegal action. 'Twill be a sad day for the interwebs if he 'wins'.

 

 

The interwebs?

 

If he wins, it's a bad day for free speech.

 

 

He can take our internet... BUT HE WILL NEVER TAKE OUR FREEDOM!!!

 

 

Not really defamation when Disney really did make such caricatures.

 

However, they WEREN'T directly [or indirectly] responsible for Hiroshima.

 

He's saying they are. Which is a pretty damaging statement, if taken seriously.

Edited June 21, 2012 by X-13

[Garacesh]

If he wins, it's a bad day for free speech.

 

Pfft. Free Speech is going down the drain no matter what happens.

 

Carreon's main argument basically strikes me as 'People wouldn't parody me, and I wouldn't have recieved abusive emails, if Inman hadn't posted that article and made BearLove Good/Cancer Bad, therefore it's his fault'.. What he doesn't realise is people wouldn't parody him or send him nasty emails if he weren't such an incompetant git with the intelligence of a common grasshopper.

 

I bet FunnyJunk are loving it, though. Everybody at first was like "LOLOLOL FunnyJunk you're idiots", but now we're too busy laughing at Carreon's pathetic attempt at retribution, and FunnyJunk are actually keeping their mouths shut (or at least I've not heard anything else about them, but admittedly I'm only half-assed following all the shenanigans)

 

edit: I accidentally a word.

[X-13]

I bet FunnyJunk are loving it, though.

 

 

Doubtful. They'll be forever known as "the people who hired Carreon".

 

And "the company who's mother seduces bears".

 

 

Carreon apparently started all of this on his own. FJ denied authorising the $20k demand letter. [i think.]

 

 

edit: I accidentally a word.

 

For shame.

[AMLinington]

I'm just *ROFL*-ing now. This is getting ridiculous. He's suing the charities, defaming Disney. My lord what is wrong with this man? I had thought he'd dug himself a deep enough hole with the first letter but this is getting crazy now. What started as funny and silly is now almost frightening in scale. I think I'm going to stop reading it now and wait for it to be resolved and for Carreon to fall into the pit of negative notoriety that he is teetering on the edge of. I just hope a judge has the sense to verbally (or literally, either or) slap him down and dismiss the whole lot.

[X-13]

My lord what is wrong with this man?

 

To be fair, people he works with are asking the same thing.

 

Apparently, this is completely out of character... Which makes me feel a little bit bad about everyone laughing at his breakdown.

 

 

That is... If it's legit. It could all be an elaborate marketing scheme.