6 ms·

So it seems to me that FunnyJunk trolled the Oatmeal into a legal fight with a lawyer, with one threatening letter. If there is a lesson in this, it is that so

by verroq 14y ago

So it seems to me that FunnyJunk trolled the Oatmeal into a legal fight with a lawyer, with one threatening letter. If there is a lesson in this, it is that some humility goes a long way. In his furious stupor with FunnyJunk he attacked their lawyer as well.

icebraining 14y ago
Nothing on him? He has stuff on them - namely, copyright infringement (which may or may not be covered by the DMCA safe harbor). And he didn't start a war with their lawyer, it was the other way around.
- verroq 14y ago
  I think if he didn't draw the bear picture Carreon wouldn't have taken it personally. Right now this lawyer is representing himself on a rampage against the Oatmeal and charities.
  - Codhisattva 14y ago
    Not so much against the charities - just the use of the charities as a shield for Inman's slander. Inman has really screwed up. The personal attack against Carreon was an over reaction and largely unnecessary.
    - Goladus 14y ago
      Eh, it's only an overreaction if you have no sense of humor and don't consider how offensive and stressful it is to be shaken down for $20,000 the way Inman was.
      - Codhisattva 14y ago
        Generally speaking, rational people control their reactions and act in appropriate ways. This is especially true in stressful situations. An over reaction can be justified by stress, but it is not excused. And in this situation, Inman is going to be held accountable for his actions.
        pavel_lishin 14y ago
        > And in this situation, Inman is going to be held accountable for his actions. I agree. I hope he gets what's coming to him for raising over $100k in charitable donations.
        Goladus 14y ago
        Did Inman misrepresent any of Carreon's actions? If not, then the lawyer has no one to blame for the harassment he has earned, other than the individual harassers themselves. And if we're talking about rational, appropriate reactions: the right reaction for Carreon is to apologize for what he did. It's the first step in reconciliation and it's normal human behavior. Carreon apologizes and comes to an understanding with Inman, who tells everyone about it and the outrage cools off. Carreon's reaction isn't rational, it's calculating and vengeful and probably greedy. The harassment is unfortunate and where illegal, it's appropriate to punish. But that's not what he's doing.
        davegauer 14y ago
        > Inman is going to be held accountable for his actions. Seriously? Am I suddenly living in a world in which people can be 'held accountable' for drawing a picture of someone's mom seducing a Kodiak bear? When did this happen?
        Codhisattva 14y ago
        Libel? Incitement? There's a line - not just of decency but also of the law.
        Goladus 14y ago
        http://www.scribd.com/doc/96850920/FunnyJunk-The-Oatmeal-Response http://www.scribd.com/doc/96850920/FunnyJunk-The-Oatmeal-Res...
        deleted 14y ago
        [deleted]
    - icebraining 14y ago
      Personal attack?! What do you call threatening to sue a person for $20000? Any decent person, lawyer or not, should have refused to write such a letter. Besides, nothing in Inman's blog post indicates the attack to be directed against Carreon, he just assumed it was. In fact, seeing as he uses phrases like "your website", it makes more sense to assume the attack is against FunnyJunk and/or its owners.
    - sk5t 14y ago
      Want to know how I know you don't know what constitutes slander in the US?
      - rprasad 14y ago
        Want to know how I know that you don't know what constitutes slander in the U.S.? Because you think that a picture is slander. A picture is libel, which is a related but separate concept. Both slander and libel involve defamatory statements, but slander is restricted to transitory (i.e., spoken) statements whereas libel refers to published (i.e, written or drawn) statements. Video is either libel or slander depending on how the defamatory statements are presented .
- chris_wot 14y ago
  If Innman hasn't registered his work with the U.S. Copyright office, then he can't sue for copyright infringement damages. Not that he can't claim copyright, just can't litigate. Not sure if he can file after someone posts his copyrighted material and then claim damages though - here's hoping he can!
  - josephagoss 14y ago
    Copyright for artworks in this context is automatic. At least that's how it works in the UK. Once your create your own art, you hold the automatic copyright. Unless you made the art under commission to someone else. Now I might be wrong but that's the impression I have had for years.
    - chris_wot 14y ago
      Not entirely true. Under 17 USC § 411, if you are bringing civil action against someone for copyright infringement, you must have registered your work. However, under 17 USC § 106, owners of copyright have exclusive rights to their works (with some caveats), which doesn't have any baring on their ability to sue someone for copyright infringement. Where I'm a little hazy is in my reading of 17 USC § 411(c) - I believe that you can only sue for copyright infringement within 3 months of the work being "first transmitted" (which I assume also includes publication), and 48 hours after the work has been "transmitted".
    - YmMot 14y ago
      You are granted copyright automatically yes, and this gives you certain protections like the ability to file DMCA takedown notices etc. However, in order to sue for statutory damages you have to have filed the copyright with the US Patent and Trademark office before the infringement occurred. You can still sue if you register after, but only for actual damages which is harder to prove.
  - chris_wot 14y ago
    Uh, why was this downvoted? The U.S. Copyright Office has this in their FAQ - see here: http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#register http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#register

by verroq 14y ago

icebraining 14y ago

Nothing on him? He has stuff on them - namely, copyright infringement (which may or may not be covered by the DMCA safe harbor). And he didn't start a war with their lawyer, it was the other way around.

verroq 14y ago
I think if he didn't draw the bear picture Carreon wouldn't have taken it personally. Right now this lawyer is representing himself on a rampage against the Oatmeal and charities.
- Codhisattva 14y ago
  Not so much against the charities - just the use of the charities as a shield for Inman's slander. Inman has really screwed up. The personal attack against Carreon was an over reaction and largely unnecessary.
  - Goladus 14y ago
    Eh, it's only an overreaction if you have no sense of humor and don't consider how offensive and stressful it is to be shaken down for $20,000 the way Inman was.
    - Codhisattva 14y ago
      Generally speaking, rational people control their reactions and act in appropriate ways. This is especially true in stressful situations. An over reaction can be justified by stress, but it is not excused. And in this situation, Inman is going to be held accountable for his actions.
      - pavel_lishin 14y ago
        > And in this situation, Inman is going to be held accountable for his actions. I agree. I hope he gets what's coming to him for raising over $100k in charitable donations.
      - Goladus 14y ago
        Did Inman misrepresent any of Carreon's actions? If not, then the lawyer has no one to blame for the harassment he has earned, other than the individual harassers themselves. And if we're talking about rational, appropriate reactions: the right reaction for Carreon is to apologize for what he did. It's the first step in reconciliation and it's normal human behavior. Carreon apologizes and comes to an understanding with Inman, who tells everyone about it and the outrage cools off. Carreon's reaction isn't rational, it's calculating and vengeful and probably greedy. The harassment is unfortunate and where illegal, it's appropriate to punish. But that's not what he's doing.
      - davegauer 14y ago
        > Inman is going to be held accountable for his actions. Seriously? Am I suddenly living in a world in which people can be 'held accountable' for drawing a picture of someone's mom seducing a Kodiak bear? When did this happen?
        Codhisattva 14y ago
        Libel? Incitement? There's a line - not just of decency but also of the law.
        Goladus 14y ago
        http://www.scribd.com/doc/96850920/FunnyJunk-The-Oatmeal-Response http://www.scribd.com/doc/96850920/FunnyJunk-The-Oatmeal-Res...
        deleted 14y ago
        [deleted]
  - icebraining 14y ago
    Personal attack?! What do you call threatening to sue a person for $20000? Any decent person, lawyer or not, should have refused to write such a letter. Besides, nothing in Inman's blog post indicates the attack to be directed against Carreon, he just assumed it was. In fact, seeing as he uses phrases like "your website", it makes more sense to assume the attack is against FunnyJunk and/or its owners.
  - sk5t 14y ago
    Want to know how I know you don't know what constitutes slander in the US?
    - rprasad 14y ago
      Want to know how I know that you don't know what constitutes slander in the U.S.? Because you think that a picture is slander. A picture is libel, which is a related but separate concept. Both slander and libel involve defamatory statements, but slander is restricted to transitory (i.e., spoken) statements whereas libel refers to published (i.e, written or drawn) statements. Video is either libel or slander depending on how the defamatory statements are presented .
chris_wot 14y ago
If Innman hasn't registered his work with the U.S. Copyright office, then he can't sue for copyright infringement damages. Not that he can't claim copyright, just can't litigate. Not sure if he can file after someone posts his copyrighted material and then claim damages though - here's hoping he can!
- josephagoss 14y ago
  Copyright for artworks in this context is automatic. At least that's how it works in the UK. Once your create your own art, you hold the automatic copyright. Unless you made the art under commission to someone else. Now I might be wrong but that's the impression I have had for years.
  - chris_wot 14y ago
    Not entirely true. Under 17 USC § 411, if you are bringing civil action against someone for copyright infringement, you must have registered your work. However, under 17 USC § 106, owners of copyright have exclusive rights to their works (with some caveats), which doesn't have any baring on their ability to sue someone for copyright infringement. Where I'm a little hazy is in my reading of 17 USC § 411(c) - I believe that you can only sue for copyright infringement within 3 months of the work being "first transmitted" (which I assume also includes publication), and 48 hours after the work has been "transmitted".
  - YmMot 14y ago
    You are granted copyright automatically yes, and this gives you certain protections like the ability to file DMCA takedown notices etc. However, in order to sue for statutory damages you have to have filed the copyright with the US Patent and Trademark office before the infringement occurred. You can still sue if you register after, but only for actual damages which is harder to prove.
- chris_wot 14y ago
  Uh, why was this downvoted? The U.S. Copyright Office has this in their FAQ - see here: http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#register http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#register