4 ms·

> Here's how FunnyJunk.com's business operates: > - Gather funny pictures from around the internet > - Host them on FunnyJunk.com > - Slather them in adve

> 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 ago
And ebaums since...forever.
- anigbrowl 15y ago
  For 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.
  - carussell 15y ago
    Not quite the same. > 'craziest police chases' Footage recorded from police cruisers and obtained as part of the public record? Unlikely to run into a need for copyright clearance. > 'worst TV moments' Limited parts of a whole broadcast in a non-market-destroying way for the purposes of commentary? Fair use. Which isn't to say those shows don't suck. My mention of Grooveshark had to do with the way Grooveshark was/is encouraging users to upload infringing material with a nudge and a wink.
citricsquid 15y ago
but but but grooveshark is okay they're "disrupting the music industry"!!!!!!!!!!!
rl41 15y ago
On Grooveshark though, attribution to the artist is actually unavoidable.
- carussell 15y ago
  No, two years ago, Grooveshark existed ostensibly to allow artists to upload their own work. So what really happened was that the majority of the content there was major-label music being attributed to "kubraffle622" and the like.
  - stinkytaco 15y ago
    Though you had to put the title, and often the artist name in the filename/title because that's what people were looking for. It's a bit different at FJ because the Oatmeal isn't mainstream, it just sort of appears in someone's vision and is then discarded. Music searching is a different sort of experience.
    - carussell 15y ago
      We're not talking about user experiences, we're talking about the tactics used by the hosting party to disclaim any responsibility while being complicit in what the users are doing.

crikli 15y ago

And ebaums since...forever.

anigbrowl 15y ago
For 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.
- carussell 15y ago
  Not quite the same. > 'craziest police chases' Footage recorded from police cruisers and obtained as part of the public record? Unlikely to run into a need for copyright clearance. > 'worst TV moments' Limited parts of a whole broadcast in a non-market-destroying way for the purposes of commentary? Fair use. Which isn't to say those shows don't suck. My mention of Grooveshark had to do with the way Grooveshark was/is encouraging users to upload infringing material with a nudge and a wink.

citricsquid 15y ago

but but but grooveshark is okay they're "disrupting the music industry"!!!!!!!!!!!

rl41 15y ago

On Grooveshark though, attribution to the artist is actually unavoidable.

carussell 15y ago
No, two years ago, Grooveshark existed ostensibly to allow artists to upload their own work. So what really happened was that the majority of the content there was major-label music being attributed to "kubraffle622" and the like.
- stinkytaco 15y ago
  Though you had to put the title, and often the artist name in the filename/title because that's what people were looking for. It's a bit different at FJ because the Oatmeal isn't mainstream, it just sort of appears in someone's vision and is then discarded. Music searching is a different sort of experience.
  - carussell 15y ago
    We're not talking about user experiences, we're talking about the tactics used by the hosting party to disclaim any responsibility while being complicit in what the users are doing.