7 ms·

The Maker of the Trollface Meme

88 points by chkuendig 12y ago

JoshTriplett 12y ago
"Inventor of image only made popular by people widely copying and remixing it starts suing people over it now that it's popular." I half expected the post date to be April 1 (it wasn't), or for the last line of the article to be "And if you believed a word of the above, here's an image for you:" (it wasn't).
- MattBearman 12y ago
  I don't see the problem with this, now the image is popular and recognisable, companies are profiting from his creation. Why shouldn't he get a licensing fee for that?
  - Mahn 12y ago
    Because he didn't distribute it as such. Do you think the image would have become half as popular if he had posted it as "here's a face I drew in mspaint, I intend to change royalties for its use if it get catches on, enjoy"? No, the reason it was used everywhere is because it was assumed to be license-free, and usually the people hit by this wouldn't have otherwise used it. I don't have anything against creators earning royalties from their work, but in my eyes this is akin to charging a user for a subscription without his knowledge.
    - slazaro 12y ago
      If I'm not mistaken, he's only asking for money from whoever is profiting from it and he's not bothering anybody that just uses the image in a non-commercial way. Still kind of weird because it more or less belongs to "the people" and everybody uses it, but if someone is profiting from it, I don't see a problem with him getting a share.
    - TeMPOraL 12y ago
      > the reason it was used everywhere is because it was assumed to be license-free, and usually the people hit by this wouldn't have otherwise used it. Exactly. An image that is free for non-commercial use requires you to think whether your use is really non-commercial in nature, which is too much of a cognitive burden, so you go and pick another one. Moreover, this image wouldn't actually be famous if not for the number of people who profited on it already - namely, all that image sharing sites that have ads on them.
    - mikkom 12y ago
      > No, the reason it was used everywhere is because it was assumed to be license-free What does that even mean? No image or any art is "licence-free" unless author explicitly states so. That's the basis of copyright, your creations are yours (unless you give them away). Publishing your work doesn't change anything.
      - comboy 12y ago
        He posted it to 4chan. "The next day, though, Ramirez was merely pleased to see others sharing his one-off doodle. In the anonymous world of 4chan, having other people recognize your contribution felt good." He clearly didn't have any issue with that, and without any license posted, that was already a violation wasn't it? They shared his work without stating the author and without his permission. Yet he was happy about that, until he smelled some money. It's like if you would put a basket of candies, some people approach you and try to take it, and you're like "sure, take it, I'm glad you like it". And this keeps on for a while. And then some guy in a suite comes in and takes one candy like so many others. At which point you start running after him shouting "THIEF! He stole my candy!"
        mikkom 12y ago
        As I already said, by publishing your own work you don't give your rights for the work away. Yes, he's suing people who are using his artwork to make money for themselves. Why do you think that is a problem and why do you think they shouldn't pay him a cut for using his artwork?
        comboy 12y ago
        It goes along with how trademark laws in US work (I think), if you don't defend them, you lose rights. IANAL so this could be a bad example. Law is on his side, so they should pay. My problem is just with him changing his mind at some point. Not defending his rights from the start and even being happy about them being broken could suggest that he meant it to be free. And as others mentioned, there's no chance that it would have any value whatsoever if it wasn't. E.g. company X puts some small open source code online (yes, nowadays nobody would touch it without a license). People modify it, improve it, share it, build on top of it. Company X often tweets "awesome to see how our code spreads and all fantastic usages of it". And then after some time it sues. i.e. as others mentioned, this picture would have no value if it would not (assumed to) be in public domain and without all thousands comics and memes done on top of it.
    - jeffbush 12y ago
      My understanding from the article is that he posted a comic strip that contained the image and people cut that image out of it. This was not how he intended for it to be used. Furthermore, the article implies the people he's going after are making money off it. If you have a business (even a small one) that is making money, I think you have no excuse for not making sure you have rights to the material you are using. So, I don't think it's fair to blame Carlos because other people misused his copyrighted material without his consent.
      - userbinator 12y ago
        He posted it to 4chan, where remixing and reposting images others have posted is the norm. In fact that's why it got popular as a meme.
    - anon4 12y ago
      He didn't attach a license to it, so it gets the standard "creator owns copyright on this until Disney stops prolonging copyright terms" license. The fact that he didn't sue at first in now way implies that it's public domain.
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
- TillE 12y ago
  "Popularity" really isn't the point. He's going after people who are profiting off his copyrighted work. I know casual copyright infringement is the norm on the internet (eg, distributing images from god knows where), and maybe that's okay, but you've certainly crossed an ethical line when you've started selling it without permission.
  - alistairjcbrown 12y ago
    The irony being that even the article had an image from god knows where > Image Credit: Adam Sandler (Unknown, please let me know!)
  - ajuc 12y ago
    It's not illegal or evil, but it's bad style. The value of the image is 99.9% associations it aquired thanks to the "copyright is bad" culture using it under assumption that it is public domain. Changing it now is bad style, and it sets bad example for others that may take this further. I know slippery slope isn't a very strong argument, but it is still valid concern. I wonder if 4chan should adopt GPL-like licencing.
    - girvo 12y ago
      I agree it's not evil, but in some cases it's definitely illegal. Whether that's a good or bad thing, I pass no judgement on.
    - userbinator 12y ago
      NC-SA, which oddly enough doesn't actually exist as a real Creative Commons license, would be more similar to what 4chan users treat memes as - non-commercial and share-alike, but no attribution nor any other the other restrictions.
  - ekianjo 12y ago
    > but you've certainly crossed an ethical line when you've started selling it without permission. The troll face would have NEVER become popular if it was not free to distribute in the first place. It's not this guy who made it popular by himself, it's the 4chan and subsequent communities who did - in that sense, what it became does not belong to him at all.
- Dylan16807 12y ago
  It's not like he waited in the bushes for it to become popular. He just smacked down people who were trying to profit or particularly annoying.
tacojuan 12y ago
Hmm... maybe someone should tip off the Pepe frog creator. Someone is flat-out selling remixes of that meme. (hopefully just as a joke) http://normi.es/getout/ http://normi.es/getout/
scotty79 12y ago
So trollface author became actual copyright troll himself clipping coupons of people who use it, but without reimbursing millions of people who made the trollface what it is today, a recognizable sign.
- kefka 12y ago
  His idea is "If you're going to make money on it, I want a cut". I'm OK with that.
  - scotty79 12y ago
    Lots of people are ok with that, especially in the US. That's why it's possible.
Paul_S 12y ago
I bet there are trolls out there right now registering all images on 4chan in case one of them becomes popular.
- MichaelGG 12y ago
  How did anyone verify that this guy actually created Trollface?
shultays 12y ago
Isn't troll face was "cool face" before? I thought the original comic was not about troll at all, can't search it at work.
- cremno 12y ago
  You're thinking about a different comic: http://www.ebaumsworld.com/pictures/view/80430987/ http://www.ebaumsworld.com/pictures/view/80430987/ The original can be found on the linked site, but it's also on DA: http://whynne.deviantart.com/art/Comic-Trolls-98357844 http://whynne.deviantart.com/art/Comic-Trolls-98357844 From the description: >It's trollface, not coolface, but call it what you like.
- msl09 12y ago
  Unfortunately deviant art does not give us the exact date that an image was posted: http://whynne.deviantart.com/art/Comic-Trolls-98357844?offset=2800#comments http://whynne.deviantart.com/art/Comic-Trolls-98357844?offse... Cool face seemed to be posted first in 2008-12-01 and trollface somewhere in 2008. http://www.ebaumsworld.com/pictures/view/80430987/ http://www.ebaumsworld.com/pictures/view/80430987/
  - cremno 12y ago
    >Submitted on September 19, 2008 But that doesn't matter that much since it was originally posted on 4chan and not DA.
- simlevesque 12y ago
  You are totally right and this article is plain wrong. Troll face was actually stolen from the Cool Face comic on Deviant Art (he says so in the description). Anyone who was on the /b/ around 2008 knows this. When the word got around that Troll Face was in fact Cool Face, someone decided to make a new Troll Face : http://i.imgur.com/47dh8SQ.jpg http://i.imgur.com/47dh8SQ.jpg Source : me and http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/trollface-coolface-problem http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/trollface-coolface-problem
  - 12y ago
wiradikusuma 12y ago
Just curious, is it "ok" to publish something without accompanying license, and later when it becomes popular, start demanding licenses?
- ekianjo 12y ago
  You got to love copyright laws. The man who drew the troll face became a license troll himself.
  - anon4 12y ago
    He's not a license troll, he's sensibly enforcing his license. If he were a troll, he'd be suing individuals for posting free comics featuring his creation, asking for exorbitant fees.
- anon4 12y ago
  There is no such thing as "publish without a license". Everything always has a license attached and if you don't specify exactly what, it gets the default license, under which the creator reserves exclusive rights for everything.
amagumori 12y ago
the trollface originates from the "problem, officer?" comic, not the one referenced in the article. i don't think this guy is the original creator.
triangleman 12y ago
You know what would have been great? If this article was titled The Maker of the Coolface Meme.
- simlevesque 12y ago
  Gawker's gonna Gawk
sarciszewski 12y ago
ITT: people who believe that just because something originated on 4chan, it has no inherent value
- rubbingalcohol 12y ago
  ITT: people who think licenses apply to copyrighted works based on how they "feel" about it.
  - sarciszewski 12y ago
    Yeah, that too.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
greggyb 12y ago
Why so much hate when an artist enforces his own copyright on an image, but only against companies or individuals profiting from it? It seems pretty darn similar to when a company is sued for GPL infringement, but no one cares about the little projects that gain no traction that are probably in technical violation of the license.
- MichaelGG 12y ago
  It's more like an author starts contributing to an open source project, and everyone things he is contributing under the license. Then he turns around and says "what, no, this is copyright me, all rights reserved".
  - greggyb 12y ago
    So if there were a class action lawsuit representing all 4chan users targeting the same individuals/companies that the artist is, then you'd see that as fine? Note: not aggressive/flippant - I understand best through examples and hypotheticals. I am legitimately curious, because in my mind my original post seems a fair analogy to me and I want to know what I'm seeing differently than most of the commenters here.
towelguy 12y ago
The guy posted it in 4chan, an anonymous image board. Shouldn't that make it public domain? If he copyrighted it after that, shouldn't people be able to use the version of the image they got before the copyright? Also, 4chan doesn't keep archives, how do we know he's the original author anyway?
- krapp 12y ago
  >Shouldn't that make it public domain? If that were true, wouldn't every copyrighted image or torrent posted to 4chan automatically lose its copyright status? IANAL, but in the US at least, copyright is automatically held by the creator of a work whether or not it's explicitly licensed[0]. Posting something to a forum doesn't affect the rights held by the owner in any way, at best it just ignores them. >Also, 4chan doesn't keep archives, how do we know he's the original author anyway? There are a ton of sites which keep archives of 4chan threads. [0]http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/copyright-automatic.html http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/copyright-automatic.h...
- snowwrestler 12y ago
  > The guy posted it in 4chan, an anonymous image board. Shouldn't that make it public domain? It doesn't. A copyright holder can do whatever they want with their copyrighted content, including paste it to a free website, without losing their copyright. Only a legal document like a license or a contract can put a piece of copyrighted content into public domain before the copyright expires. > If he copyrighted it after that, shouldn't people be able to use the version of the image they got before the copyright? Copyright is created when content is created. You now hold a copyright on your comment, and I hold a copyright on my comment (this one you're reading right now). I'm quoting your comment to provide commentary on it, which is a protected fair use. But if I took your comment and pasted it on a t-shirt, sold it for $20 per shirt and sold 100,000 of them, you would be within your rights to sue for a cut of that money. > Also, 4chan doesn't keep archives, how do we know he's the original author anyway? This is the sort of the thing that a court case will decide. He'll try to prove he is, and the defense will try to prove that he is not.

88 points by chkuendig 12y ago

"Inventor of image only made popular by people widely copying and remixing it starts suing people over it now that it's popular." I half expected the post date to be April 1 (it wasn't), or for the last line of the article to be "And if you believed a word of the above, here's an image for you:" (it wasn't).

MattBearman 12y ago
I don't see the problem with this, now the image is popular and recognisable, companies are profiting from his creation. Why shouldn't he get a licensing fee for that?
- Mahn 12y ago
  Because he didn't distribute it as such. Do you think the image would have become half as popular if he had posted it as "here's a face I drew in mspaint, I intend to change royalties for its use if it get catches on, enjoy"? No, the reason it was used everywhere is because it was assumed to be license-free, and usually the people hit by this wouldn't have otherwise used it. I don't have anything against creators earning royalties from their work, but in my eyes this is akin to charging a user for a subscription without his knowledge.
  - slazaro 12y ago
    If I'm not mistaken, he's only asking for money from whoever is profiting from it and he's not bothering anybody that just uses the image in a non-commercial way. Still kind of weird because it more or less belongs to "the people" and everybody uses it, but if someone is profiting from it, I don't see a problem with him getting a share.
  - TeMPOraL 12y ago
    > the reason it was used everywhere is because it was assumed to be license-free, and usually the people hit by this wouldn't have otherwise used it. Exactly. An image that is free for non-commercial use requires you to think whether your use is really non-commercial in nature, which is too much of a cognitive burden, so you go and pick another one. Moreover, this image wouldn't actually be famous if not for the number of people who profited on it already - namely, all that image sharing sites that have ads on them.
  - mikkom 12y ago
    > No, the reason it was used everywhere is because it was assumed to be license-free What does that even mean? No image or any art is "licence-free" unless author explicitly states so. That's the basis of copyright, your creations are yours (unless you give them away). Publishing your work doesn't change anything.
    - comboy 12y ago
      He posted it to 4chan. "The next day, though, Ramirez was merely pleased to see others sharing his one-off doodle. In the anonymous world of 4chan, having other people recognize your contribution felt good." He clearly didn't have any issue with that, and without any license posted, that was already a violation wasn't it? They shared his work without stating the author and without his permission. Yet he was happy about that, until he smelled some money. It's like if you would put a basket of candies, some people approach you and try to take it, and you're like "sure, take it, I'm glad you like it". And this keeps on for a while. And then some guy in a suite comes in and takes one candy like so many others. At which point you start running after him shouting "THIEF! He stole my candy!"
      - mikkom 12y ago
        As I already said, by publishing your own work you don't give your rights for the work away. Yes, he's suing people who are using his artwork to make money for themselves. Why do you think that is a problem and why do you think they shouldn't pay him a cut for using his artwork?
        comboy 12y ago
        It goes along with how trademark laws in US work (I think), if you don't defend them, you lose rights. IANAL so this could be a bad example. Law is on his side, so they should pay. My problem is just with him changing his mind at some point. Not defending his rights from the start and even being happy about them being broken could suggest that he meant it to be free. And as others mentioned, there's no chance that it would have any value whatsoever if it wasn't. E.g. company X puts some small open source code online (yes, nowadays nobody would touch it without a license). People modify it, improve it, share it, build on top of it. Company X often tweets "awesome to see how our code spreads and all fantastic usages of it". And then after some time it sues. i.e. as others mentioned, this picture would have no value if it would not (assumed to) be in public domain and without all thousands comics and memes done on top of it.
  - jeffbush 12y ago
    My understanding from the article is that he posted a comic strip that contained the image and people cut that image out of it. This was not how he intended for it to be used. Furthermore, the article implies the people he's going after are making money off it. If you have a business (even a small one) that is making money, I think you have no excuse for not making sure you have rights to the material you are using. So, I don't think it's fair to blame Carlos because other people misused his copyrighted material without his consent.
    - userbinator 12y ago
      He posted it to 4chan, where remixing and reposting images others have posted is the norm. In fact that's why it got popular as a meme.
  - anon4 12y ago
    He didn't attach a license to it, so it gets the standard "creator owns copyright on this until Disney stops prolonging copyright terms" license. The fact that he didn't sue at first in now way implies that it's public domain.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
TillE 12y ago
"Popularity" really isn't the point. He's going after people who are profiting off his copyrighted work. I know casual copyright infringement is the norm on the internet (eg, distributing images from god knows where), and maybe that's okay, but you've certainly crossed an ethical line when you've started selling it without permission.
- alistairjcbrown 12y ago
  The irony being that even the article had an image from god knows where > Image Credit: Adam Sandler (Unknown, please let me know!)
- ajuc 12y ago
  It's not illegal or evil, but it's bad style. The value of the image is 99.9% associations it aquired thanks to the "copyright is bad" culture using it under assumption that it is public domain. Changing it now is bad style, and it sets bad example for others that may take this further. I know slippery slope isn't a very strong argument, but it is still valid concern. I wonder if 4chan should adopt GPL-like licencing.
  - girvo 12y ago
    I agree it's not evil, but in some cases it's definitely illegal. Whether that's a good or bad thing, I pass no judgement on.
  - userbinator 12y ago
    NC-SA, which oddly enough doesn't actually exist as a real Creative Commons license, would be more similar to what 4chan users treat memes as - non-commercial and share-alike, but no attribution nor any other the other restrictions.
- ekianjo 12y ago
  > but you've certainly crossed an ethical line when you've started selling it without permission. The troll face would have NEVER become popular if it was not free to distribute in the first place. It's not this guy who made it popular by himself, it's the 4chan and subsequent communities who did - in that sense, what it became does not belong to him at all.
Dylan16807 12y ago
It's not like he waited in the bushes for it to become popular. He just smacked down people who were trying to profit or particularly annoying.

tacojuan 12y ago

Hmm... maybe someone should tip off the Pepe frog creator. Someone is flat-out selling remixes of that meme. (hopefully just as a joke) http://normi.es/getout/ http://normi.es/getout/

scotty79 12y ago

So trollface author became actual copyright troll himself clipping coupons of people who use it, but without reimbursing millions of people who made the trollface what it is today, a recognizable sign.

kefka 12y ago
His idea is "If you're going to make money on it, I want a cut". I'm OK with that.
- scotty79 12y ago
  Lots of people are ok with that, especially in the US. That's why it's possible.

Paul_S 12y ago

I bet there are trolls out there right now registering all images on 4chan in case one of them becomes popular.

MichaelGG 12y ago
How did anyone verify that this guy actually created Trollface?

shultays 12y ago

Isn't troll face was "cool face" before? I thought the original comic was not about troll at all, can't search it at work.

cremno 12y ago
You're thinking about a different comic: http://www.ebaumsworld.com/pictures/view/80430987/ http://www.ebaumsworld.com/pictures/view/80430987/ The original can be found on the linked site, but it's also on DA: http://whynne.deviantart.com/art/Comic-Trolls-98357844 http://whynne.deviantart.com/art/Comic-Trolls-98357844 From the description: >It's trollface, not coolface, but call it what you like.
msl09 12y ago
Unfortunately deviant art does not give us the exact date that an image was posted: http://whynne.deviantart.com/art/Comic-Trolls-98357844?offset=2800#comments http://whynne.deviantart.com/art/Comic-Trolls-98357844?offse... Cool face seemed to be posted first in 2008-12-01 and trollface somewhere in 2008. http://www.ebaumsworld.com/pictures/view/80430987/ http://www.ebaumsworld.com/pictures/view/80430987/
- cremno 12y ago
  >Submitted on September 19, 2008 But that doesn't matter that much since it was originally posted on 4chan and not DA.
simlevesque 12y ago
You are totally right and this article is plain wrong. Troll face was actually stolen from the Cool Face comic on Deviant Art (he says so in the description). Anyone who was on the /b/ around 2008 knows this. When the word got around that Troll Face was in fact Cool Face, someone decided to make a new Troll Face : http://i.imgur.com/47dh8SQ.jpg http://i.imgur.com/47dh8SQ.jpg Source : me and http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/trollface-coolface-problem http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/trollface-coolface-problem
- 12y ago

wiradikusuma 12y ago

Just curious, is it "ok" to publish something without accompanying license, and later when it becomes popular, start demanding licenses?

ekianjo 12y ago
You got to love copyright laws. The man who drew the troll face became a license troll himself.
- anon4 12y ago
  He's not a license troll, he's sensibly enforcing his license. If he were a troll, he'd be suing individuals for posting free comics featuring his creation, asking for exorbitant fees.
anon4 12y ago
There is no such thing as "publish without a license". Everything always has a license attached and if you don't specify exactly what, it gets the default license, under which the creator reserves exclusive rights for everything.

amagumori 12y ago

the trollface originates from the "problem, officer?" comic, not the one referenced in the article. i don't think this guy is the original creator.

triangleman 12y ago

You know what would have been great? If this article was titled The Maker of the Coolface Meme.

simlevesque 12y ago
Gawker's gonna Gawk

sarciszewski 12y ago

ITT: people who believe that just because something originated on 4chan, it has no inherent value

rubbingalcohol 12y ago
ITT: people who think licenses apply to copyrighted works based on how they "feel" about it.
- sarciszewski 12y ago
  Yeah, that too.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

greggyb 12y ago

Why so much hate when an artist enforces his own copyright on an image, but only against companies or individuals profiting from it? It seems pretty darn similar to when a company is sued for GPL infringement, but no one cares about the little projects that gain no traction that are probably in technical violation of the license.

MichaelGG 12y ago
It's more like an author starts contributing to an open source project, and everyone things he is contributing under the license. Then he turns around and says "what, no, this is copyright me, all rights reserved".
- greggyb 12y ago
  So if there were a class action lawsuit representing all 4chan users targeting the same individuals/companies that the artist is, then you'd see that as fine? Note: not aggressive/flippant - I understand best through examples and hypotheticals. I am legitimately curious, because in my mind my original post seems a fair analogy to me and I want to know what I'm seeing differently than most of the commenters here.

towelguy 12y ago

The guy posted it in 4chan, an anonymous image board. Shouldn't that make it public domain? If he copyrighted it after that, shouldn't people be able to use the version of the image they got before the copyright? Also, 4chan doesn't keep archives, how do we know he's the original author anyway?

krapp 12y ago
>Shouldn't that make it public domain? If that were true, wouldn't every copyrighted image or torrent posted to 4chan automatically lose its copyright status? IANAL, but in the US at least, copyright is automatically held by the creator of a work whether or not it's explicitly licensed[0]. Posting something to a forum doesn't affect the rights held by the owner in any way, at best it just ignores them. >Also, 4chan doesn't keep archives, how do we know he's the original author anyway? There are a ton of sites which keep archives of 4chan threads. [0]http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/copyright-automatic.html http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/copyright-automatic.h...
snowwrestler 12y ago
> The guy posted it in 4chan, an anonymous image board. Shouldn't that make it public domain? It doesn't. A copyright holder can do whatever they want with their copyrighted content, including paste it to a free website, without losing their copyright. Only a legal document like a license or a contract can put a piece of copyrighted content into public domain before the copyright expires. > If he copyrighted it after that, shouldn't people be able to use the version of the image they got before the copyright? Copyright is created when content is created. You now hold a copyright on your comment, and I hold a copyright on my comment (this one you're reading right now). I'm quoting your comment to provide commentary on it, which is a protected fair use. But if I took your comment and pasted it on a t-shirt, sold it for $20 per shirt and sold 100,000 of them, you would be within your rights to sue for a cut of that money. > Also, 4chan doesn't keep archives, how do we know he's the original author anyway? This is the sort of the thing that a court case will decide. He'll try to prove he is, and the defense will try to prove that he is not.