12 ms·
The Oatmeal vs. FunnyJunk: webcomic copyright fight gets personal
- jemka 15y agoI was expecting to read about the owners of each site getting personal, but it's just their respective users offending each other.
- masklinn 15y agoRead the update.
- ignifero 15y agoThe oatmeal has been extremely tame and polite in his response. It's funny how an anonymous crowd can make it seem as if he was in some way attacking or offending them. Here's the story: http://theoatmeal.com/blog/funnyjunk http://theoatmeal.com/blog/funnyjunk http://theoatmeal.com/blog/funnyjunk2 http://theoatmeal.com/blog/funnyjunk2 http://s3.amazonaws.com/theoatmeal-img/blog/fj_letter.jpg http://s3.amazonaws.com/theoatmeal-img/blog/fj_letter.jpg Personally, i 'd be much more furious about it.
- jcr 15y agoThe more interesting question is why doesn't one side, or the other, use a tool like http://tineye.com http://tineye.com to deal with identifying the images?
- eggbrain 15y agoThere are a ton of images that Tineye still doesn't reach. I tried his latest comic, for example, and got zero results (http://www.tineye.com/search/70c1fd774b0bf7bdb500c19e59a98e6ce7d0fd69/ http://www.tineye.com/search/70c1fd774b0bf7bdb500c19e59a98e6...). I doubt his comic isn't hosted other places on the internet!
- latch 15y agoWhat's interesting is that Inman just wants attribution - which appears to be the one thing he can't get, and the one thing that seems the most reasonable.
- paraschopra 15y agoIsn't it hard for Funny Junk to automatically give attribution if users upload images (say from their hard disk)? I'm wondering what would be ideal solution for proper attribution.
- pavel_lishin 15y agoMaybe they could use Tineye, somehow?
- icegreentea 15y agoOn one level, FJ doesn't need any 'technical' means for enforcing attribution. But they do need to expend the manpower to investigate reports of misattributed content, and to actually correct them (either changing the attribution or removal). I mean, this mechanism should exist anyways for dealing with 'internal' attribution disputes (some user reuploads another user's actual original content from FJ). Other user generated content sites (like deviantArt) have proecsses and mechanisms set up for this.
- latch 15y agohadn't thought of that. Although, seeing as they are able to delete/ban all his content, you think they have a way of identifying it.
- sorbus 15y agoThey deleted all content attributed to him - which is as simple as just searching for "The Oatmeal" - and then threw in a word filter to replace "The Oatmeal" with "The Fag". Not really the same thing as deleting or banning all his content, especially as he gave them a list of content which was still present (without attribution) which they did nothing about.
- lysol 15y agoHe flat out states he won't sue, which means funnyjunk will keep the content up. If he wants it to stop he needs to bare his teeth a little.
- teach 15y agoI really does seem like the admin of FunnyJunk is doing everything possibly (albeit unintentionally) to goad Inman into suing the site. He's complying in the most asinine ways (for example, removing all "The Oatmeal" comics... but only the ones with attribution).
- eropple 15y agoHe didn't remove them. He did a search and replace to rename any attributions of "The Oatmeal" to "the fag". Pleasant individual.
- crikli 15y agoWhat an a-wipe. I wish I was an attorney so I could offer Matthew my services pro bono. But IANAL, I'm a hacker, so I guess I'll just launch a DDoS attack. (I'm kidding. I write in PHP so I barely know how to turn on a computer; DDoS is way over my head).
- wazoox 15y agoThere are ready-made scripts for that, like slowloris.
- anigbrowl 15y agoI'd be surprised if he couldn't find an attorney to take it on contingency. The site's been around for a decade and scores OK on traffic rank; Ben Huh was able to get ~$30m for the cheezburger/lolcats operation so it's probably worth something...and that would be discoverable. Amusingly enough, funnyjunk.com has a very assertive list of terms and conditions, and looks ready to stoutly defend its own brand against infringement.
- 15y ago
- fooey 15y agoFunnyJunk's been handed just about enough rope now I do believe
- S_A_P 15y agoIm all for content aggregation(I mean look at the site we are all using here :P) but attribution is the key, and really it would seem that linking to the content generators would really help both parties out. Im not sure why they wouldnt want to do so?
- jonprins 15y agoBecause then you could bypass them for each subsequent The Oatmeal comic by just going to The Oatmeal. I'm wondering why someone hasn't done a tineye-dmca-sending mashup to help control these issues.. An example search from tineye of oatmeal images (almost two pages worth): http://www.tineye.com/search/657460f93292f13484a028f4828b838a9a5aa281/ http://www.tineye.com/search/657460f93292f13484a028f4828b838...
- andrewparker 15y agoThe TinEye search didn't succeed in capturing FunnyJunk. Assuming The Oatmeal's artwork is still up on FunnyJunk, this implementation wouldn't work, but it's a clever idea.
- protomyth 15y agoBut Hacker News is not coping the content, it is linking. You need to go to the creator's site to actually read the article. This example is if HN was coping the whole article and removing all author / source names and links.
- carussell 15y ago> Here's how FunnyJunk.com's business operates: > - Gather funny pictures from around the internet > - Host them on FunnyJunk.com > - Slather them in advertising > - If someone claims copyright infringement, throw your hands up in the air and exclaim "It was our users who uploaded your photos! We had nothing to do with it! We're innocent!" Oh, hey, it's the same as Grooveshark's model two years ago.
- crikli 15y agoAnd ebaums since...forever.
- anigbrowl 15y agoFor that matter it's similar to what TV stations do. Now a key difference is that TV usually pays for the original content, but from the consumer's point of view it's the same: find OC, slap your station logo in the corner, and surround it with advertising. All those clip shows like 'craziest police chases' and 'worst TV moments' rely on this model. Hell, there's whole channels that rely on it...I saw one recently called True TV or similar that seemed to consist of nothing but recycled news footage (mostly crime/emergency drama', library sound effects, and some 're-actors' - industry-linked professionals who sit there making pithy or occasionally witty comments in hopes of leaving whatever line of work they are in and becoming z-list celebrities instead. This seems to be endemic in American screen culture, slightly less so in the print world. In contrast, European copyright has a side feature called 'moral rights' 'droite d'auteur' - even if you sell the copyright, the original author always retains the right to be identified as the author. There's no financial obligation associated with this for the copyright owner, but it ensures the creator remains associated with the work. My limited recall is that in commercial copyright infringement disputes, courts take a strict approach to evaluating lost profits, but in cases where someone has stripped out the identity of the creator there are often additional sanctions, since it's considered an attack upon the creator's ability to earn a living in the future by being identifiable from their existing work. I'd need time to dig up citations for that, so don't rely on it. but I do think the basic concept is a good one.
- akozak 15y agoWhat I would do: Raise the stakes by putting a CC BY license (or CC BY-NC) on the comics. That way he can clearly spell out the rights associated with the works but require attribution (and retain commercial rights if desired). Then when they start appearing on other sites, all he needs to ask for is attribution and the larger copyright issue goes away.
- icegreentea 15y agoBut his problem right now is that he's not getting attribution while asking for it. Even if he did put it under a CC license, if his content is being reposted with the license and attribution stripped out, and the other party isn't playing nice when being asked nicely, then he's forced into the same situation as he is now, except with a stronger case if he attempts to sue (which he doesn't want to do anyways).
- akozak 15y agoSee my comment above. Applying the CC BY license would add legal certainty that attribution is the ONLY thing needed for compliance. He could say, "look I've proven I want you to be able to distribute it with very minimal barriers. please comply with my attribution requirement."
- ceejayoz 15y ago> Raise the stakes by putting a CC BY license (or CC BY-NC) on the comics. This lowers the stakes. His work is automatically under copyright, and FunnyJunk has zero rights (outside of exceptions like fair use, which clearly isn't the case here) to the content by default.
- akozak 15y agoBy raising the stakes, I mean it lowers the things FJ needs to do in order to comply. He could say, look I've ALREADY licensed it for you to use and all you need to to is attribute.
- 15y ago
- protomyth 15y agoI hate the RIAA / MPAA way of doing things, and I think deep linking is fine, but this outright content coping is getting out of hand. It poisons the search results by having people who have no creative spark doing SEO and getting their content elsewhere. The incentives all point to content coping as the best business model for a whole group of people. Why bother to create when Google will pay you anyway and often put you above the original content owner. It doesn't seem to be worth the time to send DMCA requests to the site. It seems like sending DMCA requests to Google might help, but really, some method of cutting off the funding of these sites would be best. Remove the profit motive. Ideally (not practically) it would be nice if Google gave the ad sense money to the original content creator if a DMCA request is filed on that pages search results. Won't work, but somehow this Search -> Ad model creates the problem, the same companies need to step up and fix it, because it seems like there is going to be no search alternatives because of advertising mass.
- dclowd9901 15y agoI don't understand why Google doesn't sort results by distance from original author? Is there no technological way to do that? In my head it'd work like this: Original: 100 points Someone who the original links to: 10 points Someone else completely unrelated to the original, but housing their content: 1 point They're constantly crawling. Is there no way for their crawlers to determine the originating source of content?
- andrewflnr 15y agoTo help The Oatmeal, in particular, it would have to analyze a ton of large images. Basically, it would have to analyze every image on every page and compare to all its other images. That would be pretty hard. I do think you might be on to something. If anyone is in a position to help with this issue, it's Google. Wouldn't it be awesome if they did something to help this problem in a big way?
- protomyth 15y agoGoogle developed and has been hugely successful with the business model (Ad Words) that makes profitable this bad behavior. It would seem a technical, automated means is extremely difficult to impossible. The mechanism under the law of the US is the DMCA notice. Removing a site from search and adwords that continually gets such notices would fix the problem. I have had searches where such notices were mentioned, so Google would seem to have the means. Cut off the money and the behavior will stop.
- fluidcruft 15y agoMostly, I'm peeved that the oatmeal's stuff has been reposted somewhere called "funnyjunk". The oatmeal is not funny.
- yalurker 15y agoI down-modded this comment, but since the user probably made it in good-faith I'm going to explain why. This would be a good comment on reddit - short, opinionated and easy for people who share the sentiment to upvote to show their agreement. However, it doesn't add anything to the discussion. It's not insightful or relevant, it just adds noise to the discussion. The community here generally tends to try to keep the discussion more thoughtful with less short, funny quips, and following that ideal this comment does not belong.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- mtogo 15y agoFor my own sanity i'm going to assume that you are joking and that you are not this elitist or rude usually.
- jedberg 15y ago> This would be a good comment on reddit No, actually it would be a shitty comment on reddit too. Sadly, it is the kind of comment that is now tolerated in some of the bigger subreddits.
- fluidcruft 15y agoI don't know why you would expect more than shitty comments in response to GiantBatFart's shitty content and reddit spamming. GIGO
- ansy 15y agoPerhaps there is a business model here? Create a Tineye style crawler that digs the web for matching images and is smart enough to serve up DMCA notices for a small monthly fee to content makers. It will track compliance and put it all in a nice dashboard so creators don't get overwhelmed reining in the copy cats.
- retree 15y agoCorrect me with I'm wrong - but I think all DMCA notices have to be electronically signed by a human under penalty of perjury. Whilst I think only one or two people have been convicted of sending false DMCA notices, the penalties are stiff enough to not let a program sign DMCA notices on my behalf.
- ansy 15y agoSo just pile up the infringing sites and put a "SEND" button next to them? Log in once a week, hit the "SEND ALL under penalty of perjury" button?
- abofh 15y agoSorta like mortgages -- click 'we claim ownership' and call it done <g>.
- owenmarshall 15y agoI wouldn't adopt this business model without an insanely good team of programmers... or an insanely good team of lawyers. Maybe even both.
- eftpotrm 15y agoThe difficult bit is the finding though, not the verifying; use the code to do the finding and identifying, present both to the human who clicks the 'yes on penalty of perjury' button and you're done.
- ZachPruckowski 15y ago
- Quarrelsome 15y agoIf he just wants attribution why doesn't he become a member of funnyjunk and post his own stuff himself WITH attribution? As he owns the content he can beat the others to it. I appreciate its far from a perfect solution but perhaps one with less conflict.
- mvalle 15y agoThat's what I was thinking. He could even have FJ host it for him. win-win.
- bxr 15y agoExcept for that part where FJ makes money off of him.
- Pooter 15y ago> If he just wants attribution why doesn't he become a member of funnyjunk and post his own stuff himself WITH attribution? Because he doesn't want to? And why should the onus be on him to do this so as to prevent people from taking his work and passing it along with no attribution?
- mishmash 15y ago> why doesn't he become a member of funnyjunk and post his own stuff Not agreeing with his current plan, but keeping up with all the new sites that do this would probably be more work than trying to attack them. > I know that if FunnyJunk disappeared, 50 other clones would pop up to take its place overnight..
- mikhuang 15y agoThen there's a startup idea? One that maintains your content across a bunch of sites?
- dspillett 15y agoActually, I thought of a site that scanned FJ and similar, copied the content, scanned services like Google and TinEye for the original content and then rehosted it all with attribution to the original source (and not FJ et al). The effort required to filter out duplicates, locate correct attribution and links to the site holding the original content could be crowdsourced. Give users points of reputation for updating content with correct attribution and links, or adding something in the first place with the same or for adding genuinely original content, take away point when "original" content gets found as copied (this could be applied instantly if a user uploads something that is detected as a duplicate of an item already listed with correct attribution), and so forth. Some meta-moderation (like slashdot) might be needed though, as well as a conflict resolution process that would need human intervention at some point, and some effort would need to go into creating and maintaining good relationships with the original content creators, so for from a complete walk in the park to do properly. Part of the "sell" to the original author like The Oatmeal could be providing a list of places where the same content is found with no attribution and back-links, keeping this site free of "bad" ads (adult and/or disturbing content, pop-ups/unders, irritating flash, or just too much advertising) and showing only thumbnails/segments with links to the full content on their site if they prefer. If it wasn't for the fact I once again completely failed to win the lottery this week so still have to work to pay the mortgage, I'd be tempted to give such a project a go...
- vessenes 15y agoAnd...Mission accomplished. The best PR the Oatmeal, (and FJ, I suppose) could want. I'll hope for his sake he can keep the feud going through 2012.
- JoachimSchipper 15y agoIt really is time for copyright reform. It's stupid that a site like this (or like the YouTube of old) is essentially untouchable (under the DMCA) despite not even trying to prevent people from uploading copyrighted material; it's also stupid that some random pirate can get ordered to pay millions of dollars. Maybe a standard penalty of ~$10/infringement (scaled by cost of original), with minimal hassle, would be the way to go.
- sorbus 15y agoAnd, while we're legislating copyright reform, let's throw in a requirement to store the hashes (or other identifying features) of any content that has a DMCA filed against it and check all new content against that list of hashes to prevent infringing content from being uploaded again. Of course, then there's the problem of people using fake DMCAs to get content removed (which does happen). Allowing profit for that would be a horrible idea, especially on a scale low enough that it would be cheaper to pay than to verify that the person who filed the DMCA does indeed own the copyright.
- protomyth 15y agoWouldn't a cropped image have different hash then the original. Cropping an extra or one less pixel line changes the hash again.
- sorbus 15y agoYeah. Other identifying features, then - I'm sure that someone has come up with a way to identify images which ignores such basic changes to them, especially considering what TinEye does.
- ChuckMcM 15y agoIt would be interesting if Google came out with an Adsense for Content policy which said "We won't pay share advertising revenue on sites which host duplicated or scraped content." That would put a huge dent in this sort of thing.
- jaredmck 15y agoIt would, and I think their lack of action in this area makes it clear that google must not want to combat duplicate/scraped content. It's in their best interest (short-term, I don't know if it will be long term) to let people do whatever unsavory stuff they want to, as long as it helps sell ads.
- ChuckMcM 15y agoI remember noticing on Google's Q4 2010 earnings report that the revenue they got from Adsense for Content happened to be almost exactly the same amount of 'free cash' flow they had that quarter. So clearly its not something they would be interested in jeopardizing.
- tropin 15y agoI think the problem is it would be really hard for the Google web spiders to tell which is the real content and which the copy without human interaction.
- anigbrowl 15y agoI don't know about that. for one-offs yes, but if you noticed serial content appearing on sites a, b, c, and d, then you can just poll them as a set periodically until you see which sites consistently originates it.
- BoppreH 15y agoWhy not take the oldest as the original and leave a little form for authors to tell google when they move their content?
- earl 15y agoOatmeal should sue. It's just not that complex to build image similarity algorithms that are robust to minor changes like photoshopping the link back to the outmeal's site out or resolution changes or image degradation from compression. At this point there's no real reason for FunnyJunk not to be permanently banning oatmeal's images from being displayed on their site after the first dmca except they don't want to and it makes them money not to do so. Hell, I can build that for under $30K. Email in the profile.
- mechanical_fish 15y agoI didn't think I had anything to say about this. But, for unrelated reasons, I just went looking for a link to the hilarious 24-hour webcomic, Blotchmen. And I found lots of pages that link to it, like this MeFi page: http://www.metafilter.com/76009/Blotchmen-and-other-comics-by-Kevin-Cannon http://www.metafilter.com/76009/Blotchmen-and-other-comics-b... and MeFi, just like all of the other top hits on Google, is very careful and very virtuous -- rather than reproduce the comic, they send everyone to the original artist's blog so that Kevin Cannon can get full credit for his work: http://freshmanforlife.com/ http://freshmanforlife.com/ ... but the blog is down. It displays nothing but a wordpress.com error page, and now I'm really depressed because (a) I won't get to read the comic today and (b) I won't get to send it to my friends and (c) I've got visions of it disappearing forever because, hey, that happens, and if poor Kevin Cannon gets hit by a bus his online presence could just disappear, or maybe he'll pull a _why and have a fit of creative destruction and set all of his work on fire one day and then I will be totally screwed, I will never see his work again... ...except, of course, that his work has probably been copied. I guess, if worst comes to worst, I'll have to look for it on some site like FunnyJunk and hope it's there. What is the moral of this story? People copy the work of artists rather than linking because they can make money from sleazy ads, and that is not good. But there is another reason to copy: Links suck. They really really suck. They don't just suck in the long term: They suck in real time. (Blotchmen is only three years old.) Links are unreliable on a technical level (blogs break, poorly cached sites fall over with every slight breeze), on a commercial level (licenses change, DRM becomes obsolete, what was once free is now behind a paywall, what was once purchasable is now off the market and the copyright will last until after I'm dead) and legally nebulous (one DMCA takedown notice can remove a link forever, sometimes even if the notice is fraudulent or invalid). There are a hundred things that can go wrong with a link, and one of them usually does, generally within five years or less.
- ben0x539 15y agoDude's mostly asking for attribution. So post a copy along with a link to the source and he isn't gonna complain.
- mechanical_fish 15y ago
- usedtolurk 15y agoWhat a pity this has got so personal. They could really help each other. Why doesn't Oatmeal could just upload his own (fully attributed) work to FunnyJunk himself? It's clear they have an enthusiastic audience and he would like the exposure. If he doesn't then somebody else will take credit for it. FunnyJunk should have a mechanism that encourages voting up of original / properly attributed content and downvotes copies - that would benefit their users too.