The Oatmeal v. FunnyJunk, Part VI: The Electronic Frontier Foundation Steps In

You may also like...

385 Responses

  1. Ken says:

    Incidentally, I say "near-perfect" only because he did not close with "snort my taint," for which I understand I am entitled to royalties.

  2. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Go EFF!

  3. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Also, yay, this means since you won't need to be the attorney for anyone, you can continue to rip any future Carreon filings a new one, for our popcorn-laden entertainment!

  4. Damon says:

    @ Matthew Inman,EFF, and the folks helping defend him: burn them..burn them all and leave them nothing. They deserve it.

  5. Jay Lee says:

    Inman tells Carreon to go EFF himself!

  6. Nibor says:

    Thanks Ken, for a new post my scroll wheel finger is getting hurt, by scrolling down over all the comments (gigantium number of them) on the previous posts now I can start at the top again ;-)

    And hoping that all the commenters move over here of course

  7. HeatherCat says:

    *APPLAUSE* And continued thanks to Ken and others for all they do.
    I particularly like how Mr. Inman phrased it: "I have a right to express my opinion, whether Mr. Carreon likes it or not."
    Yes, so do we all.

  8. Robert C says:

    It really does sound like he's talking about attorney-client communications. I've been wondering for a while what Funny Junk thinks about how their attorney has been handling this situation. While they're not involved in the suit he filed against Inman, it's still reflecting on them since the action arose out of their C&D letter. I can't imagine that they're happy about it. What are the ethics of a situation like this? Does Carreon have any duty to refrain from activities that make his client look bad?

  9. Margaret says:

    Yeah, he really threw Funnyjunk under the bus, didn't he?

  10. Joe says:

    Ken – not if Carreon trademarks it first :-)

  11. Mike K says:

    So I'm assuming the way Carreon described the exchange isn't exactly how it happened. My guess is he asked if those particular comics had been taken down (which they had), he got the answer he wanted, and proceeded without further questions.

    Assuming something similar to that happened, can FJ now sue Carreon for defamation since he's claiming they misinformed him?
    I'm just curious as such a suit probably would be neutral or positive for the reputation of FJ.

  12. Margaret says:

    The Guardian article was written by the same person as The Stranger article (although they are very different pieces) and both are presumably based on the phone conversation the author had with Carreon.

    From the Guardian article:

  13. Margaret says:

    Oops! I messed up the quote, Should be:

    "I did not know those links were there. According to my client, he didn't know about it and there was no way for him to discover it," said Carreon.

  14. Ann Bransom says:

    My prediction, from a PR standpoint, is that FunnyJunk coasts along until they see the new visitors to their site start to taper off and then they will take some kind of action or make a statement to churn it back up again. There is no reason for them to make a statement at this point. They are not under the microscope or holding the microscope.

  15. Collin says:

    typo:

    "it's not year clear who is representing"

    "not yet" or "not very" perhaps?

  16. Nick says:

    Ken, this is great work, but I have one question about your coverage of this incredible saga: why did you pick "oatmeal-v-funnyjunk" as a tag? Everyone knows this should be tagged as the "bearlove" saga.

  17. Ann Bransom says:

    There was no way to discover links on their own website?

  18. Roxy says:

    I really wouldn't expect Carreon to know anything about attorney-client privilege since he basically uses clipart and a microsoft template as letterhead. I'm glad that Inman is getting the help and resources of the legal community to put the smack down on this tool.

  19. @Ken — It's not an isolated slip-up, either, as he told the Guardian today:

    FunnyJunk wouldn't return calls from the Guardian to tell us about its own policies, but Carreon has now effectively abandoned the threat of a FunnyJunk lawsuit, stating that he was misinformed by his client. His letter claimed that all the comics had been removed from FunnyJunk, but Inman pointed out dozens that were still there.

    "I did not know those links were there. According to my client, he didn't know about it and there was no way for him to discover it," said Carreon, still smarting from a torrent of abusive mails from angry netizens.

    A far cry from the requirement that attorneys keep client confidences "at every peril to himself or herself" — unless, of course, FunnyJunk consented to the disclosures. What motive they'd have in doing so is beyond me.

    The fact that it makes FunnyJunk look bad suggests that he might not have their permission to make that disclosure.

    Plus,

  20. Pretend I had another point at the end of comment.

  21. Ann Bransom says:

    Funnyjunk.com is running off of a Linux server in the Netherlands. So all that content is most likely being dynamically generated out of a MySql database.

    mysql> Select * From [Table Containing User Uploaded Entries] Where [The Title Column] LIKE '%Oatmeal%'

    ^^ seems like that would have been a reasonable place to start in making sure you're not hosting the content that you are accusing someone of lying about you hosting

  22. Chris R. says:

    Ann, I actually feel bad for FunnyJunk at this point because so much traffic probably was directed at them the first day or two. Then suddenly Charles made this whole thing about himself and no one really spoke about FunnyJunk after that.

  23. Jack says:

    @Ann, the claim that they had no way to discover the comics is BS of course. Many of Inman's comics were promoted to the front page, and the search feature was available. Now it seems they have disabled search, at least for terms like oatmeal.

  24. Link says:

    This case is an example of douchetwaddle asshattery at it's finest.

  25. Ken says:

    I think everything on FunnyJunk is just tagged "hurrrlolfag," which makes it more challenging to search.

  26. Sarahw says:

    So Carreon admits his demand letter was a screwup from the start, and indirectly concedes that Inman absolutely had some rational basis to strenuously object to its bogosity and publicly and hilariously refuse to comply.

    So now, he rewards Inman and other parties concerned, for his own sloppy error, by finding new ways to demand improper things.

    If I could have found the cartoons on FJ I'm sure FJ LLC and Carreon could have. So I'm not sure the "we had no way to know how bogus the demand was" excuse is very compelling.

  27. Jack says:

    It took me all of ten seconds to find this on funny junk: http://www.funnyjunk.com/funny_pictures/3794961/we+ALL+do+this/

  28. Roxy says:

    Snerk. You would think that FJ would be better policing their site for Oatmeal things right about now.

  29. HeatherCat says:

    I dunno… the original complaint of Mr. Inman was that his work was being copied WITHOUT credit to him. So, if they copy it but keep the signature/copyright or tag, I don't think he'd mind so much.
    I mean the guy has admitted that an artist likes their work to be shared as much as possible, just so long as everyone knows who really created it.
    and that's what it was all about in the beginning, if I'm not mistaken.

  30. Robert C says:

    @Jack, @roxy FunnyJunk actually crippled their own search engine so that it doesn't work for certain terms, such as "Oatmeal" "XKCD," "Cyanide & Happiness" or other titles of webcomics.
    http://changememe.com/2012/06/12/funnyjunk-com-broke-its-search-engine/

  31. Luke says:

    @Jerk: Which just gives The Oatmeal's initial blog post about FJ's tactics even more weight. That second one hasn't even been cropped.

  32. Jack says:

    @hearhercat, He may not mind (but who knows at this point), but my point was more that it would have been simple for the FJ admin to find these comics on his site, if he really wanted to.

  33. GabrielHounds says:

    I can't wait to read the Chas Carreon / American Buddha illustrated version of the super secret motives of the real EFF.

  34. Jack says:

    @Luke, "@Jerk"!? That's defamation! I shall have to retain Mr Carrion's services!

  35. Luke says:

    @Jack Doh. Co-worker was talking to me while typing and I had a freudian slip there.

  36. Noah Callaway says:

    I completely agree that FunnyJunk's original demand for defamation was totally bogus and Carreon's further actions somehow manage to go several steps beyond that.

    That being said, I think people severely underestimate the cost of policing user generated content. To partially block people from uploading comics you could prevent anything with "Oatmeal" in the title being uploaded. Ignoring the fact that this prevents people from uploading comics about oatmeal (which is annoying, and becomes a bigger problem as you block more words), you now probably need to police each comic by title.

    Now you have to manually add every comic title that the Oatmeal produces (their entire back-catalog, plus monitoring going forward) to your black-list. Now you're pissing off more users who are triggering false-positives on your upload filter, _and_ you have to monitor the Oatmeal and keep updating this filter.

    But wait! Now there's precedent. You filter the Oatmeal's comics, so now you need to filter Cyanide & Happiness. And if you do that for them, you need to filter XKCD, Penny-Arcade, SMBC, and hundreds more.

    So now you're filtering on tens or hundreds of webcomic titles, and maybe thousands of individual comic titles. The only way to do this is to take a few weeks to set up automated systems to check RSS feeds for the comics and automatically add things to the filter.

    Oh boy! Now you're in a world of false-positives hurt when XKCD posts a comic titled "funny", and your automated system unfortunately removes anything with the word "funny" in the title.

    And this only covers webcomics. Good luck trying to remove other infringing material on your website.

    It's actually a huge amount of work to police user-generated content on a web-platform. I'm not trying to validate any of the inappropriate demands based on the defamation claim in any way, but please don't assume that keeping user-generated content from infringing is trivial!

  37. ben says:

    Well, it's not clear to me how FunnyJunk is even involved in this. Has it been established that FJ is actually Carreon's client? His initial demand was for $20,000 for *himself*, it seemed. His subsequent suits are "pro se". Is he actually working for FJ, or what?

  38. Jack says:

    @Luke, I would've guessed autocorrect. ( that's always my wife's excuse :p)

  39. Nibor says:

    Hey the fundraiser made 208,000 and a bit

    So that's (minus the 4% for IndieGoGo) 100,000 if it's split between the two charities, and reading all the comments that is the safest way for Inman to go, so he doesn't get in to trouble with someone I do not want to name, for this person is so engaged with those two charities, that he even has donated to this fundraiser, but he wants to force/ensure the split in equal parts and only to these two charities, as far as I can understand out of the ramblings by this not named person.

    The unnamed person is unnamed because his name is copyrighted and I do not want to be sued for infringement.

    By the way I’m not a lawyer and not even an US citizen so forgive me if I misinterpreted the (US) law or even misused the right words.

  40. Grifter says:

    @Robert C:

    Speaking of Cyanide and Happiness, today's comic seems pretty apropos:
    http://www.explosm.net/comics/2836/

  41. Dan Weber says:

    Today I learned a taint is worth $20,000.

  42. Margaret says:

    @Dan Weber: Depends on the taint.

  43. Jess says:

    Perhaps Carreon is pissed O-F-F at the E-F-F

    http://charles-carreon.com/2012/06/21/f-the-eff/

  44. Dan Weber says:

    Someone pointed out on the Part IV thread:

    FunnyJunk only registered its trademark on May 23rd, with Chas as the correspondent. This seems a lot like the Mattel issue, where he went out looking for a case. Register the trademark and then issue the threat letter complaining about violation of trademark.

    (I believe FunnyJunk, for all its problems, deserves trademark protection and this should not be interpreted as critical of that right. I also think they deserve unregistered trademark protection before their registration date — just like Oatmeal deserves copyright protection before they register their copyright — although as our host would quickly point out merely criticizing FJ isn't a violation of their trademark.)

  45. Margaret says:

    Re: registering FunnyJunk's trademark

    It appears, does it not, as though Mr. Carreon both registered the FJ trademark and submitted their DCMA paperwork within a week or two before sending the demand letter.

    While there's nothing wrong with that per se, and FJ should have a trademark and a DCMA filing, the timing is simply too suspicious.

  46. Randall says:

    all this leads me to wonder: How did lawyers commit career suicide before the internet?

  47. W Ross says:

    "Legal Avengers Assemble!"

  48. Turk says:

    Advice to Carreon on a statement he should make:

    "After speaking with FunnyJunk (and getting their permission to write this) we realize that my initial letter shouldn't have been sent. It appears that we had a miscommunication about what Oatmeal stuff was still on the site. Because we may have inadvertently exacerbated the situation that letter, I'm going to drop the suit that I just started. I don't want to be involved in a suit unless my own hands are 100% clean."

  49. Leon says:

    You can pretty easily search Funnyjunk for Inman's works. They have a filter in place that changes "the Oatmeal" to "the fag" in user's posts. If you search for "the fag" (with quotes) his work comes right up. I would have to look through the comments again to verify it, but I believe that's how Inman found all of the links he posted in his initial response.

  50. Roxy says:

    @Robert C, I noticed that right off the bat! Good thing my google-fu (and anyone else who is internet literate) is strong. ;)

  51. Roxy says:

    @Noah: I don't disagree with you that user generated content is something that is nearly impossible and a huge amount of work to police. On the other hand, being an admin of such site, you should really already know the huge risk you are taking. In the case of FJ I don't think they realized the can of worms they were opening with this claim against The Oatmeal for damages.

    While I am sure this isn't a special snowflake type of defamation complaint, any reasonable attorney should have advised their client of what some of the repercussions would be in store should they proceed with an actual lawsuit against Inman.

    The fact that Carreon did not do a basic google search against his clients site to make sure that all copy written material had been removed, he also probably did not advise his client that user uploaded content would need to be heavily moderated to avoid countersuit or further legal action from The Oatmeal or other websites. Great job, Carreon!

    Any real professional would have made sure that the complaint was actually valid and not leave his client vulnerable to countersuit and instead thought with his rage-reflex. Maybe his Goldline ambulance chase wasn't creating enough revenue for him to make his mortgage payment this month.

    And in reference to FJ, obviously inexperienced admin probably got an email from Carrion and thought, "Cool, I'll get 67% of 20K if I let this guy write a letter. Seems legit."

    Either way, one thing is certain, Carreon, vastly underestimated the ramifications which shows his very obvious inexperience.

  52. SPQR says:

    The crippled search and the substitution for Oatmeal confirms FunnyJunk's bad faith rather brazenly.

  53. Elly says:

    I just donated $25 to the EFF – and cited their support for Inman as the reason.

    Thanks for posting the link, Ken!

  54. W Ross says:

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidthier/2012/06/21/charles-carreon-subpoeaning-ars-technica-twitter-in-oatmeal-suit/

    A new Forbes Article

    https://twitter.com/#!/search/realtime/charles%20carreon

    Mentions of "Charles Carreon" speeding up too. (Doesn't help that https://twitter.com/#!/bybeautydamned is sparring rando trolls again, I'm really starting to think the Carreons are their own worst enemies.)

  55. Jack says:

    @Noah, one simple step that could greatly reduce copyright infringement on FJ would be to have a clearly communicated, and enforced, policy that prohibits it. If a user violates the policy, warn them and then ban them if they continue to violate said policy. They can also provide a simple method of reporting or flagging posts that violate copyright.

    FJ may already do some of this, but I doubt it. If they do have a policy, they don't enforce it.

  56. W Ross says:

    http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/06/the-persecution-of-charles-carreon/ Yet ANOTHER interview

    "“There are some things that you accept with grace," Carreon said. "But I do not accept that my mother engaged in bestiality and I do not accept that FunnyJunk slept with its mother, as it does not have a mother.""

    He's STILL saying that was about him and not Funnyjunk. Talks the twitter alot too.

    Another techdirt article too, no lulzy comments so far but we all know what happens there.

    http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120621/12032919419/charles-carreon-keeps-digging-promises-to-subpoena-twitter-ars-technica-to-track-down-parody-account.shtml

  57. Ann Bransom says:

    @Noah – I don't think anyone is trivializing the difficulty in policing user generated content on websites, including Inman himself. I think the point is that the amount of money being invested in newer technologies that automatically detect or red flag copyrighted materials needs to be proportionate to the amount of revenue your site is generating.

    Look at the financials that were revealed about how much Matthew Inman is making from the limited advertising on his website, then imagine what the financials of an advertising laden sight like FunnyJunk must be. There is a huge span of content management options in terms of cost, time, and effort between code hacking to prevent certain keywords from being used and the video fingerprinting techonologies utilized by YouTube or technologies employed by iStockPhoto or Flickr. FunnyJunk needs to find an appropriate means of auditing the content users post to their site that is proportionate to the amount of visitors they get and the amount of revenue they are earning.

    Or get out of the content aggregation business.

    There is a difference between being guilty and being responsible.

  58. Tali says:

    I love how he's trying to defend his American Buddha stuff

    In court filings and on Twitter, Carreon makes much of the fact that he engages in "tempered speech," even on hot-button topics. He doesn't resort to name-calling like "dumbass." Instead, he writes, sings, and publishes amazingly offensive songs about "President Evil" (Bush), pornographic images of newspaper columnists he doesn't like, and wishes-for-waterboarding of Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke.

    "I am not a politician," he says sternly when asked about the apparent discrepancy. "I have not deceived anyone. I am not able to stand armies. It is entirely distinct. The grounds for engaging in savage satire of people who are murderers [is a] completely different situation. That’s like comparing touch football with warfare.”

  59. Jack says:

    @SPQR, it most definitely does. In fact, by actively thwarting searches for user uploads of Inman's work it appears that FJ admin is encouraging and protecting continued infringement so that he can continue to profit.

    Douchebag move on his part.

  60. John says:

    @Noah: If your business model exposes you to legal problems, fines, and punitive damages if it doesn't work just perfectly, perhaps it's a poor business model.

    Allowing uploaded content is dangerous, even if it's just printed words. Accept the danger — including the possibility that you're going to get hurt really badly if you screw up — or find something else to do.

  61. Margaret says:

    @Tali: OMG OMG OMG I think his interview broke my brain. For real.

  62. Stuart says:

    In response to FJ didn't have an agent for DMCAs priors to may 25th which is just prior to his 20K demand:

    Still, Carreon says it doesn't matter now. "[FunnyJunk] now [has] an agent,” he said. “If someone wants to make something of the fact that they didn’t have an agent, there’s nothing to be made of it. There you go. It’s a fact. There’s no legal claim that can be made on it whatsoever."

    This makes me think of a kid trying to change the rules in the middle of the game.

  63. Colin says:

    "The grounds for engaging in savage satire of people who are murderers [is a] completely different situation. That’s like comparing touch football with warfare.”

    …or perhaps even like comparing being mocked on the internet with the nuclear attacks on Japan.

  64. Ann Bransom says:

    I'm sure it's a legal term…

    but "allegeable fact" broke my English major soul.

  65. Valerie says:

    @Tali Silly, that's way different because they can "stand armies." By crudely photoshopping Bush / Rice porn Charles Carreon is heroically saving lives.

    Now I was not aware that the conservative columnist Kathleen Parker (pictured between the erections at American Buddha) had a private army that she could "stand" to perpetrate evil and start wars, but I assume that must be true because the Carreons say so – and they would never distort facts to serve selfish ends.

    Or maybe she is just part of the Hollywood Mafia-CIA-Bearlove conspiracy to persecute the Carreons because their ancestors were secret Spanish Jews. Either way, he is right and you are wrong (probably because you are part of the conspiracy).

  66. Tali says:

    @Margaret I know! I still haven't finished reading the article, because between the crazy and my sinus infection, it is taking a lot for it to sink in.

    I recently graduated with a BA in History, and my junior research project was to research a legal case in Ireland in the late 1800s involving a priest in a small town in Kilkenny Co who sued a bunch of people (including his curates, his Bishop, and the Cardinal) for slander/libel after he was told that he would not be allowed to have a group of nuns come to start a girl's school in his town. The priest's (a Fr. Robert O'Keeffe) writings and newspaper interviews are a similar crazy to Carreon's, and O'Keeffe ended up a broke, broken, jobless (he was removed not only from his position as parish priest, but also as chaplain of the local jail) and reviled. I think Carreon would do well to learn from O'Keeffe's story (which…shameless promotion of my mentor…is the subject of the book "The European Culture Wars in Ireland" by Colin Barr. He also has a shorter academic journal article on the story somewhere on the Internets ) as he is probably going to end up with a similar conclusion to his story.

  67. W Ross says:

    Also LOL, the Techdirt account points right to Tara Carreon's Techdirt account. That's brilliant.

  68. Tali says:

    @Valerie If I'm part of the conspiracy, then I sure hope I get named as one of the Does in his case (although I think he probably should have listed more than 100 Does, as I think there have been several thousand volunteers to take those positions)

  69. Margaret says:

    @Tali: Oh, man, if you haven't read it all yet… the delights that await you!

  70. Xenocles says:

    @ Noah: "It's actually a huge amount of work to police user-generated content on a web-platform."

    Perhaps it's not such a good business plan, then. If FunnyJunk can't conduct itself ethically perhaps it should fold.

  71. Xenocles says:

    John-

    I should have read your comment first so I could just +1 it.

  72. Tali says:

    @Margaret Finished it finally. The insanity astounds.

    I think I might have found my calling, as a legal historian specializing in these sort of crazy litigations throughout history.

  73. @Tali — I can kind of see his point that Twitter posts denigrating random people might hurt his "brand", and that inflammatory posts about public figures are distinguishable, but only if Twitter were considered in a vacuum. Mr. Carreon has been quite willing to use those same kind of ad hominem attacks against random people via his YouTube account.

    Unless, of course, YouTube automatically adds "retard" to comments as a feature.

    His rationale for connecting Inman to those accounts (that he replied to one quickly?) is bizarre.

  74. Valerie says:

    @ Tali Yes, I do believe the waiting list to be named by this douchebag has gotten kind of long.

    Personally, I would prefer a more lasting souvenir from this trip into crazy town – for instance an original Tara Camerron print of me on a box of oatmeal being seduced by a bear-o-dactyl while a psycho-santa plays the mandolin and shouts obscenities at a nefarious, black CIA helicopter. But that may just be me.

  75. Tali says:

    @Adam
    That would make sense if he was only going after public figures. But what about the journalist? Her reputation as a journalist could be hurt just as much as Carreon's as a lawyer. The only difference I see there is that he's copyrighted his name, while she hasn't.

  76. Tali says:

    @Valerie

    O.O

    that. is. brilliant. I have amended my previous statement (as I am in Fl and the trip to court in CA is probably more than I can afford). THAT is how I want to be immortalized in this whole thing as well.

    I am actually really quite disappointed that Tara hasn't tried to spread her crazy and defend her husband here.

  77. Ken says:

    @Noah:
    I don't doubt that it is resource-intensive. So imagine how hard it is for authors and artists to police such sites for their work being ripped off.

    Also, it seems as if FunnyJunk (like other sites) is structured with the intent of inviting such stolen content. Could it exist without it?

  78. W Ross says:

    Ars Technica's title of "The Internet's Most Hated Man" is sticking. He's gotta love that. (Previous title holder owned a revenge porn site, google it yourself and see!)

  79. Jack says:

    The mental gymnastics required for Carreon to rationalize and justify his own actions are mind boggling. It's scary to think about what sort of delusions must be rattling around in his head, especially with such a fragile ego.

  80. Scott Jacobs says:

    <blockquoteI would've guessed autocorrect. ( that's always my wife's excuse :p)I dunno what she's telling you, but "You worthless fucker I want a divorce" isn't actually in the autocorrect system…

  81. Jack says:

    @Scott, I'm pretty sure she has that one saved as a custom auto-complete.

  82. Margaret says:

    Free speech for me, but not for thee!

    "It's totally different!"

  83. Scott Jacobs says:

    Replacing "I'll be home soon honey" I am certain…

  84. Dan Weber says:

    It's a bitch to police the Internet for your stolen content. A game of infinite whack-a-mole. But FunnyJunk (until very recently) seems to have made even that game useless.

  85. Devin says:

    Do we have any idea yet who actually owns funnyjunk?

    What are the chances it's owned by someone in the Carreon family?

  86. Matthew Cline says:

    If Carreon is the FunnyJunk owner then he isn't violating confidentiality, though he is being deceptive by referring to his "client".

  87. W Ross says:

    I'm 99% sure that Carreon is NOT the FunnyJunk admin. He's been married to Tara this whole time, and though FunnyJunk's tech design is a horror show it's STILL better than American Buddha and Charles' websites. If he had access to even FunnyJunk level Internetz he'd have used them, and his sites would be at least as "good" as FunnyJunk. There's other reasons I'm pretty sure of this, but they involve too much speculation.

  88. HeatherCat says:

    I can't believe he's the FJ admin either – if he WERE, then this would've happened much sooner. As fast as he trips himself responding to other things, one would tend to think he'd have at least taken to ranting online about the Oatmeal a year ago.

  89. Gal says:

    I was all aboard the lol train, but upon reading the ars technica article I've just been overwhelmed by what a terrible, terrible human being Charles Treyf really is.

    The level of hypocrisy, vanity, avarice, and smug superiority is staggering. He actually claims that his purpose in all this litigious nonsense is to protect well-meaning people from unscrupulous or simply misinformed characters who would misuse their funds, rather than just wasting the justice system's time to serve his bloated ego.

    He is a vile, evil little man and I hope this endeavor proves to be so financially ruinous to him and his family he is forced to make ends meat by serving as Kathleen Parker's gimp.

  90. Kevin says:

    Quick, Mr. Carreon, add Electronic Frontier Foundation to the lawsuit!

  91. Ara Ararauna says:

    “This lawsuit is a blatant attempt to abuse the legal process to punish a critic,” said EFF Intellectual Property Director Corynne McSherry. “We're very glad to help Mr. Inman fight back.”

    OMG, I think I've shed a tear after reading that answer. Bravo. I wish them the best of lucks in their quest to put that "delusions of grandeur" man on the place he belongs: back to mining stone in Siberia for a decade.

  92. Ara Ararauna says:

    Ironically, the threat of the first lawsuit never materialized. Carreon admits he was misinformed: Before demanding the $20,000, which was based on FunnyJunk's "estimate of advertising losses sustained due to the taint of being accused of engaging in willful copyright infringement,"

    OK, that made me to LOL so hard. So, by Bryan's point (FJ's admin), he lost plenty of money for his host of FJ because he lost all the income revenue that hosting and monetizing all the works of Mr. Inman represented. Sorry if it sounds confusing, but more or less it means that Mr. Inman's works mirrored in FJ represented a huge chunk of the revenue Bryan received by monetizing them.

    So, who is in blame here?

  93. Elliot says:

    Gal,
    Nice use of the original meaning of "Treyf," as distinguished from the general usage of it to mean "unkosher."

  94. Chris R. says:

    @Ara,
    I think he intended it to mean that The Oatmeal's calling FunnyJunk out as the second search result for Funny Junk is what lead to the loss of money, not the loss of content. However I am open to Charles Carreon's logic process being flawed.

  95. Gal says:

    Thanks, Elliot.

    I was sorta going for both. I… like puns.

  96. Chris R. says:

    Oh hell. If you search Charles Carreon on google the link below his website is popehat.com the following one is charles-carreon.com. Shit is getting real.

  97. Jess says:

    Gal, even better use of the word "meat" as in "forced to make ends meat by serving as Kathleen Parker's gimp."

    Bwah ha ha.

  98. Tomas - University Place, WA says:

    I would expect that any site depending on user uploaded content should have as the very first rule that ANY content must be either the uploader's own original IP, or that the uploader has permission of the copyright holder(s) to publicly distribute the content.

    Considering that in the United States (and per the Berne convention) IP is automatically copyrighted simply by existing, there really is very little gap (fair use, parody, etc.) in which an "aggregator site" can operate without problems.

    (Of course, an aggregator site purposely blocking search for specific IP ownership clues should speak volumes about the ethics of their "business model.")

    Then, of course, there is this particular vexatious twatwaffle and his bat-shit crazy wife for which there is no rational explanation or justification.

    Perhaps it is something in their water…

  99. joe says:

    Some interesting web stats. The Oatmeal by far is the more popular site but both the Oatmeal AND FunnyJunk saw a spike in web traffic over this kerfuffle. FunnyJunks traffic died down sortly after the initial publicity likely because 12 year old prepubecent teenagers have the attention span of a lightening bug, but The Oatmeals traffic continues to trend upwards as does Popehat. Especially given Carreons continued massive hole digging excavation.

    http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/4176/slide2ln.jpg

  100. Ara Ararauna says:

    @Chris R. just hope Mr. Carreon doesn't sue this site for reiterative use of his trademarked name and for "…inciting people to think that Charles Carreon was always wrong, when in fact his almighty self is always right!".
    Without The Oatmeal I would have never found this awesome site, I even made my gravatar just to lurk a little more openly and educate myself about the US's laws and lawyer dramas, if it can be called like that (I'm not sure, English is not my mother tongue). My drop my two-cents about certain subjects I know from witnessing certain dramas myself.

    On the other hand (about things that must be spoken aloud, and to inform people that the owner of FJ has already a name and an address, Bryan Durel, who is not a relative to Carreon – they don't even belong to the same race at all), Bryan has an ego as big as planet Jupiter, and the gravity created by the mass of that ego fits perfectly when you ask why he was not able to find any of Inman's works on his own database, even at the point of crippling his own search-engine on his website, and filtering words like Oatmeal and Inman and changing them by "that fag" (in fact, if you also type "Richard Simons" it will be turned to "fag") to render any user unable to find Inman's works. Bryan is also diagnosed with HPD and it made it more obvious when he conscripted Mr. Carreon as lawyer without (apparently) telling his lawyer about all the "dubious deeds" this Bryan have made to more than a thousand of users and non-users of his website. I don't plan to defend Carreon just because Bryan framed him by hidding from him "sensible information" about his own daily activities on his website, but merely stating that they are birds of a feather (because Carreon also indulged himself in hidding, deleting and fabricating evidences based on the numerous contradictions that other people pointed out in different sites, like this one). In other words, Bryan is not a person that deserves to have a lawyer, even if the cops says that you have the right to one; well OK, he can have one, I respect the rights of everyone, but this guy doesn't deserve it… at all *sniffle*

    Still outraged, I went on a saving spree, saving plenty of screenshots and saved barely almost all of Carreon's site for the sake of evidences in case he plans to take down his sorry site, including the one about his failed attempt at creating a religion around himself http://www.oestia.com/ <<< reposting because it is great example of how bipolar Mr. Carreon and wife can be if you leave them alone with a keyboard and too much hours reading L. Ron Hubbard's essays.

  101. Chris R. says:

    @Ara Ararauna, How dare you link me to that website. My eyes bleed.

  102. Joe says:

    Chris R. – I have a project that I'd like to collaborate with you on. You can ask Ken for my email or reach out to me via my "lime popsicle" email address.

  103. yundah says:

    My new favorite name for Carreon comes from CensoriousDouchebag http://charles-carreon.com/2012/06/21/f-the-eff/ "he who shall not be satirized"

  104. AlphaCentauri says:

    With all the people downloading Carron's sites to keep a record, are they putting themselves at in a bad legal position by now having copies on their own hard drives of the pirated music that is hosted on AB?

  105. Look at that says:

    I've a question, raised either here or elsewhere that's got me curious (I'm a total non-lawyer, but in one of my past lives, this question would be reasonable):

    This lawsuit seems to be way out there. What if it were way out there on purpose? (as in crazy-like-a-fox?) What could be a positive outcome for he-who-shall-not-be-satirized?

  106. Joe says:

    Not to be outdone, FunnyJunk’s users have now made “The Carreon Effect” Meme (see link below) the #1 Google link for that phrase.

    http://www.funnyjunk.com/funny_pictures/3823750/The+Carreon+Effect/

    So now the client (albeit via their users) is poking fun at their own lawyer. And boyo do their users have something to say about Carreon.

    #2 to #1 – Newantdroid ONLINE (16 minutes ago) [-]
    I don't think you understand, you retard.
    This lawyer isn't suing The Oatmeal on the behalf of FunnyJunk.
    Most of us disagree with his actions and donated spares to the charity.
    The most he did was bring twats like you around who think we all have Admin's back.

  107. Rob T. says:

    What seems pathetically obvious is that this is entirely a case of someone who has always wished they were funny taking an opportunity to hound someone who actually is.

    I'm reminded of Lt. Hauk from "Good Morning, Vietnam."

  108. Chris R. says:

    Joe, you have mail.
    Alpha, probably not unless you then mirror the site.

  109. Spectrum says:

    I keep misreading FunnyJunk as FunkyJunk. Kind of funny considering this general balls-up.

  110. T. J. Brumfield says:

    Ann, I'm already married (minor technicality) and you may be as well for all I can tell, but can we find a state where I can marry you?

  111. mhm5 says:

    Couldn't help but notice that the Lowering the Bar article missed the bit about him donating to the campaign to create standing. Is that an ethics violation?

  112. Scott Jacobs says:

    @ T.J. Brumfield – If TLC is accurate, your best best would be Nevada…

  113. Myk says:

    tl;dr. Precis – Carreon's original complaint was about FunnyJunk's taint.

  114. Jonathan says:

    Some of the things he claims in the ARS technica interview… I'm not sure he realises what he has gotten himself into. I for one am getting sick of his blatant hypocrisy. He is one of those people who feels they can bully anyone into doing what they want but as soon as someone snaps back they can't take it. I sympathize with you lawyers at the moment, as a dental student I abhor when a terrible dentist makes a fool of the lot of us.

  115. Matt Scott says:

    Latest comment from Tara claims that Inman is the one posting his pictures on sites like Funnyjunk…

    Meanwhile, Mr. Matt Inman posts his pictures everywhere on the Internet, magically making "THIEVES" everywhere he goes, according to his own sick morality, poor judgment and humongous power trip. He and his mob followers don't care about reason.

  116. Mrs. Carreon also theorized:

    There's something very bad going on here, and I don't know why I can't get a simple yes or no from ANYONE about whether Matt Robert Inman is related to Bobby Ray Inman. Apparently, every journalist in the world doesn't seem to think that knowing WHO Matt Inman is is important. He's a man without parents, brothers and sisters, or childhood friends. Sure, there's lots of famous people like that in the world!

    She's stumbled onto the Great Plan. You guys remember The Plan, right? Take one of the Illuminati-Penguin-Mafia's most powerful members, a guy once nominated for Secretary of Defense and who now heads Blackwater Xe, put one of his distant relatives (with his personal history now erased! ::cackle, stroke black cat::) in charge of a cartoon website, and wait quietly for years for Mrs. Carreon's husband to send Matt Inman a demand letter about a lesser-known website called FunnyJunk. Then we use that to try to reset a blog password! The cover is perfect!

    Drat! Who knew the Great Plan would fail because we forgot to give Matt a different last name?

  117. W Ross says:

    @Matt Scott

    "These Yellow Journalists want to give the Internet to Loki."

    She's found us out!! PRAISE HIM! PRAISE HIM!

    http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100714135545/marvelmovies/images/f/fe/Loki.png

  118. W Ross says:

    @Adam

    Who told!? It must have been someone from IlluminatusCorp, because the people down in the FBI haven't leaked anything about "Project AppleButter" since she found out that everyone is related to high level Halliburton operatives, and I'm pretty sure it wasn't the Russians. Regardless, we're HOSED.

    OK guys, I'm super serious now. Nobody talk about the secret plan. Now I know we all know we're CIA, and also simultaneously being paid by the Oatmeal, also- but Tara Carreon is getting wise. Tell the cloned Elvises, Psychic Bigfoot, and Cyber Condi to stand down!

    We've been found out, people. We're in a level 31 "Code Blue" hold until further notice.

  119. Quick, somebody put all these spill-the-beans comments in invisible text so that we don't get picked up on the Google!

  120. Valerie says:

    "He (Inman) is a man without a past like Barak Obama." -Tara Carreon

    So she's a 9/11 truther AND a birther. Anyone want to bet against her believing the moon landing was faked and that TuPac is living with Biggie on an island somewhere?

    @W ross

  121. Valerie says:

    Whoops. I meant to tell w. Ross that I heard his code 31 and must relay that the lion dances with the bear in the moonlight. Repeat: the lion dances with the bear. That is all.

  122. W Ross says:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTeGoxBG4Mo

    He also doesn't seem to like latino's.

    "I'll show you what this burrito's for." – Charles Carreon, White Hat Internet Warrior

  123. W Ross says:

    http://www.youtube.com/user/chascarreon

    Here's Charles Carreon sockpuppeting his own Hater TV Videos. Yes, that's right, Charles Carreon, man who speaks out against the sock puppets of the world, is not against a little sock puppeting of his own when people disagree.

    And you thought we'd never find out, you saucy little minx. We're the internet, we find out everything. (Scroll down to the Mark Levin thing, where he comments on his other "lofinikita" account.)

  124. Valerie says:

    @W. Ross I'm pretty sure that that video is meant to be mocking the minuteman militia and the government for deamonizing Latinos. I point this out because I wouldn't want the litigious bastard to sue you for libel. I'm thinking of the verse after the one you quoted + the comment that he wrote that says"all your nativist warriors are mine."

  125. Chris R. says:

    I am not sure if I see even a reason why she is so fixated on Bobby Ray Inman. I mean unless he's the guy who controls the demon satellites that cause people in cities to lose their nature given intelligence.

  126. Scott Jacobs says:

    Latest comment from Tara claims that Inman is the one posting his pictures on sites like Funnyjunk…

    Well that's a delightfully easy-to-disprove comment.

    Seriously, has one of these morons said something they can be sued for yet?

  127. Ann says:

    @T.J. – only if our union can be officiated by Hon. Edward M. Chen.

    http://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/candce/4:2012cv03112/256114/

  128. W Ross says:

    More Tara Carreon. Now she wants us to come to our senses, we're the victims of peer pressure.

    So far we've been:
    The victims of peer pressure
    The Oatmeal (and a VERY fast typer)
    The CIA
    People Paid by The Oatmeal
    Juggalos
    Yellow Journalists

    Also, apparently the Buddhists ALSO -got trolled by Tara Carreon- targeted their family for unfair, Walt Disney-like destruction. Will we ever run out of new people she's started an Interfued with?

    http://www.naderlibrary.com/bulletin_board/viewtopic.php?t=896&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=20&sid=044fbb4d061ecfec61f828c753464bf9

  129. W Ross says:

    DAMN YOU FAILED STRIKEOUT! (Shakes fist.)

  130. W Ross says:

    http://www.google.com/#hl=en&safe=off&sclient=psy-ab&q=the+internet's+most+hated+man&oq=the+internet's+most+hated+man&aq=f&aqi=g-q1&aql=&gs_l=hp.3..0i22.1419.7352.0.7495.37.29.4.0.0.1.405.7220.2-18j7j1.26.0…0.0.Igp8_GjJRoY&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=a8708267f6810afa&biw=1368&bih=678

    He's also secured the first spot when you search for "the internet's most hated man."

  131. Gal says:

    "We were targeted by the entire Buddhist community when I told them to go fuck themselves"

    Bwaaahahahaha.

  132. W Ross says:

    You know what's really ironic? Charles Carreon talks about his super secret email addresses, but if you look for it his wife posts his Gmail address completely underacted.

  133. Dredd says:

    Actually when it comes to the copyright infringement, I would have been on FunnyJunk's side UNTIL they decided to sue for libel. Though I'd have them to be harsher on people who censor the source of their uploads.

  134. Tom Trudeau says:

    It's great to read this lively comment fest. Here's a handy overview of the five fates facing King Carreon…

    Far in the future, when the kerfuffle has calmed and the dust has settled, there will be a panel of appellate judges that hands down the final ruling. King Carreon’s plaintive wail will face one of 5 responses. Bookies are taking bets and laying odds. Will it be 1) Abuse of Process, 2) Malicious Prosecution, 3) Frivolous Litigation, 4) Vexatious Litigation, or 5) Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. For the bonus round, place an additional bet on Disbarment. To help you plan your bet, we offer this crib sheet explaining the differences between the 5 twatwaffle types of asshat litigation. Don’t thank us. Thank Wikipedia.

    http://dont-care-eon.tumblr.com/post/25637412012/far-in-the-future-when-the-kerfuffle-has-calmed

  135. HM says:

    I hope Oats will sue funnyjunk for both defamation and Copyright infringement. I think 20000 dollars+ legal fees (this lawyer deserves at least a giant meal at a super fancy restaurant and some to go hang out with Oats in Hawaii).

    Maybe gather all the people funnyjunk stole content from(funnyjunk probably posts on his site himself) and clear that place up. They can also argue for Mr. junks' bullying by posting claims that artists are trying to shut him down and sending his ad viewers against them.

  136. Nibor says:

    Finally the Oatmeal has posted a new comic, the first since this all began and tweeted about another generous fundraiser for a good cause.
    I wonder if the comic has something to do with the whole situation, or better said does he-who-must-not-be-named-due-to-copyright-issues can come up with any kind of connection to his situation.
    I only found it a very very funny comic about a dog that does exactly that what the dog of my parents used to do, but my autistic mind messes satire, sarcasm and plain humour up, so I often do not get it at all.
    And this redirecting attention to an (even more saddening) case, with a spontaneous fundraiser as a reaction. And this one even gets more successful than the bearlove campaign, it set out for $5,000, to send the bullied elderly woman on a well-earned vacation, and had already exceeded $250,000 yesterday
    (I can’t post the correct amount at the moment, for IndieGoGo is updating their system as they say on their website)
    Does anybody know if this is Mat Inman just being him useal good natured selfish self, trying to get on with “normal” live, or is he trying to get THE INTERNET’s attention redirected, in such a way that he uses the very very limited attention span of the average internet user, when they start reading this new thing, they completely forget the previous one, being something with love and a furry animal wasn’t it???
    I don’t want to suggest that what he is doing is wrong, I even find it a stroke of genius or a stroke of kind heartiness and even admire him on/over? It. I could try to look into the things he has done until now, to know which of the two it is likely to be, but I just haven’t got a basement with oempaloempas like Ken has at my disposal, so I have to sleep, eat, drink and go to the toilet next to keeping up with this stuff and do so myself, which leaves me practically no time to research Mat’s past as well.
    By the way, thanks you all for filling my day with all your writings and opinions, yes this is a genuine thanks, I don’t do satire, sarcasm or plain humour that well as I mentioned earlier.
    (I try and will keep trying to, but will often fail miserably and I’m fine with that. :-) )
    Now I’m going to try to include the links to the two thing I mentioned, maybe I get it right this time.

  137. Nibor says:

    Mannn I suck at this,

    so you just have to copy an paste it your selfs:

    My dog every time, comic by the Oatmeal at:
    http://theoatmeal.com/comics/my_dog

    Story on the bullied elderly woman fundraiser, news story by Tory Floyd at:
    http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/right-click/karen-huff-klein-bullied-bus-monitor-best-vacation-134740950.html

  138. flip says:

    @Noah Callaway • Jun 21, 2012 @12:36 pm

    Great point that's getting lost in the discussion…

  139. acard says:

    Not sure if it's just me, but, The Oatmeal website is crashing I.E 8 everytime I click any cartoon. I was trying to look at "My Dog Every Time"
    (http://s3.amazonaws.com/theoatmeal-img/thumbnails/my_dog.png)

  140. Jay Lee says:

    In reading the words of @charlescarreon and his various sockpuppets, it appears he is positioning himself to take credit for the funds raised by @oatmeal getting to the charities they were intended for in the first place. So when Matt follows through on the promise he made, Charles will swoop in and claim victory.

  141. Valerie says:

    I didn't mind when Tara Carreon accused me of being in an elaborate plot, but I am greatly offended that she doesn't seem to think that I (and most reasonable people) can conclude her husband is an asshat all by myself simply by looking at facts. I can also see she is batshit crazy by casually skimming her "art.". These are not genious level observations.

    It must suck to go through life thinking everyone who disagrees with you is also out to get you personally (self fulfilling prophesy if your default response is to hysterically accuse critics of plotting your downfall for nefarious reasons).

  142. Nibor says:

    @Valerie, You did read your post back, before you clicked the submit comment ???

    You realy, realy ??? mind what this person thinks or even says ?

    Or did I lost the clou again?

  143. W Ross says:

    http://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/candce/4:2012cv03112/256114/

    Two new docs:

    CLERK'S NOTICE of Impending Reassignment to U.S. District Judge (ig, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/20/2012)

    And

    ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to Judge Hon. Edward M. Chen for all further proceedings. Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu no longer assigned to the case. Signed by the Executive Committee on June 21, 2012. (cjl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/21/2012)

  144. Valerie says:

    @Nibor No, I don't really care what Tara Carreon thinks about me (given that I am neither a player in the case, nor a legal expert, I assume she hasn't got a clue who I am, other than as a faceless part of the conspiracy she imagines).

    I just meant to highlight the condescension inherent in her position – basically, unless you believe exactly what she does you are a mindless dupe and a victim of peer pressure. Facetiousness fail – my bad.

  145. Nibor says:

    @Valerie, so I lost the clue again and this time I'm relieved I did ;-)

    The thought that she really could reach somebody, who looked to be in her right mind, was to terrifying to me.

  146. V says:

    Nibor, CC doesn't have copyright on his name, he has a trademark. I am not a lawyer, but as far as I understand trademark:
    - you have to defend it or you risk losing it (which is not true of copyright, if I recall correctly).
    - it's limited to a specific domain. In CC's case it's: Legal services
    So I guess the imposter twitter account would have to have operated in the Legal services domain to be a trademark violation. I have no idea if claiming to be the lawyer CC is enough.

  147. Kristen says:

    @Nibor my impression from the new Oatmeal cartoon is that Inman is trying to get some semblance of normal life back by doing what he's always done. The dog cartoon is very like some of his other work, albeit his milder, less offend-y stuff. ;)

    I'm not 100% sure of his motives for the blog post about the bus monitor (for I am not in his head) but I get the impression he is impressed/touched by the internet coming to the help of this woman who was very wronged as it has done for him (last I heard she had something over $300,000 donated so far for her vacation).

    Hope that helps. My husband, son and one of my daughters have differing degrees of autism. Good for you for using your voice. Don't ever be embarrassed about missing the idiosyncratic points of humor and such; the world needs literal too. :)

  148. W Ross says:

    http://www.onlinemedialaw.com/

    Yet ANOTHER Charles Carreon site, but this one could provide some tasty clues into how he things the law works Re The Interwebz.

    @Nibor I'm on the spectrum too, don't sweat it. All brains are beautiful in the web's eyes :P

  149. W Ross says:

    http://www.onlinemedialaw.com/Information_Crime

    "Meet a New Criminal — The Atavistic Geek

    The dawn of widespread Internet communication heralded the beginning of a new day for fraud, forgery and larceny. A new criminal type has appeared to exploit the plethora of opportunities for theft and mischief — the atavistic geek. An atavist refuses to acknowledge social restraints that prevent him from pursuing his exclusive personal benefit. I prefer this description to “hackers,” because cracking codes and invading networks is actually some of the least common antisocial activity engaged in by atavistic geeks. The free range they are allowed on the Internet feeds their antisocial impulses in myriads of ways, rewarding them for their misdeeds with money, status, and often, entry into legitimate business.

    This Ain’t Rocket Science

    Atavistic geeks are not necessarily any smarter than your average car thief, and just like a car thief can remain fully employed because he knows how to steal cars and deliver them to his fence, atavistic geeks sometimes develop only the basic skills needed to know how to deceive people and deliver them to their boss for full and effective exploitation. Just like car thieves, they are expendable people, usually too morally uneducated to understand the harm they are causing or the risks they run. Of course, the atavistic geek faces much less of a likelihood of apprehension than the average car thief, leading me to say that anyone who commits crimes without a computer is simply running unnecessary risks. Nevertheless, their cleverness should not move us to admiration or pity – these people need real jobs."

    I daresay I think this popped up in the search because it's got new content :). They just can't not talk, can they? Not for 24 hours can that little clan turn off the internet and just not fan the flames, lol.

  150. Valerie says:

    "An atavist refuses to acknowledge social restraints that prevent him from pursuing his exclusive personal benefit."

    Um, would that include the social restraints that discourage extorting money from internet cartoonists, suing the universe because your feelings were hurt by the Interwebz, and general asshattedness?

  151. Nibor says:

    @Kristen @W Ross, thanks
    I try not to advertise it too much, but sometimes it’s just better to hint at it, so people don’t misinterpret my motives, when I blunder (by the way I’m not ashamed or afraid to blunder).

    And W Ross next time please tell us before you quote him that you do so, only after reading I clicked the link and found out you weren’t losing it.

  152. Valerie says:

    This seems to be the Judge who has just been assigned the case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_M._Chen He has a background with the ACLU.

  153. Gal says:

    @Valerie To paraphrase Scott Meyer – Tara Carreon's curse is that she only ever deals with people who, at that moment, are dealing with Tara Carreon.

  154. apauld says:

    Ken, even if Carreon wants to blame his client for misleading him, isn't it part of a lawyers job to do some research (due diligence) on the issues before sending out a letter demanding a remedy? Also, do you know anything about the sex.com case? If so, wasn't it basically a fraud case, or was it more involved? The reason I ask is that Carreon advertises himself as "Ashland lawyer concentrating in Internet-related legal and intellectual property issues," though he seems grasp little of either of those issues.

  155. Foster says:

    so now that Mr. Carreon is saying "opps my bad" on the original letter, and by his own warped logic is he not the one responsible for what has happened to and said about him due to his letter inciting Mr. Inman and thus Mr. Inman's fans to "attack" Mr. Carreon?

  156. Kris says:

    Or, what about the whole nature of this suit? From the interviews, he's raised the banner of "I'm working for YOU and everyone who's ever donated to a charity fundraiser, to make sure your money goes where you intend it to" when the case documents are listed as:

    Nature of Suit: Intellectual Property – Trademark
    Cause: 15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)

    I am not a lawyer nor have much interest in such things, but this is one thing I've been following since I first heard it. I'd love clarification on how these two separate ideals are one in the same. "I'm suing for this, but I MEAN that"?

  157. Kris says:

    And, as many others have pointed out, it's been stated that Inman was initially hoping to only get the $20,000 raised, and as per Carreon's own argument, the $180,000 more (outside of the $20,000 already pledged to the NWF and ACS) is "fair game" to be used as Inman sees fit… I'm not sure what grounds there are… I mean, "donating to charity" is one thing, "Outside of the money I've raised for sure going to these two, I'll donate the excess to another charity" type thing.

    If that makes any sense…

  158. Foster says:

    @Kris
    That makes perfect sense to me the initial goal was 20K to NWF and ACS split 50/50 but after that he stated because of overflow he would add 2 more in my eyes that means as long as at least 10k is give to NWF and ACS respectively he has complied with his obligation as to which charities he donates the remainder that's for him to decide. Mind I am not a Lawyer and not sure if there is any legal obligation to only donate to the only the NWF and ACS due to the original fund raiser idea.

  159. W Ross says:

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidthier/2012/06/22/electronic-frontier-foundation-throws-its-weight-behind-the-oatmeal/

    New Forbes:

    " He hopes that this can be a landmark case in figuring out some of the murkier parts of defamation, trademark infringement and internet law."

    We hope so too, just with a vastly different outcome. >:D

  160. Kris says:

    @Foster
    Yeah, that's pretty much exactly what I meant. I mean, even if he split the whole amount he's gotten (rounding down to $200,000 for easy maths) between four charities, each charity would get $50,000. (Less, due to the IndieGoGo service fee of 7%, of course, but still well over the 10k-to-both prior commitment.)

    I'd just like to know where the law stood on that.

    If technically Carreon is in the right, it seems to me more like a technicality, which is probably what Carreon wants in the end. "I can't get you for this but I GOT YOU ON THIS HAHAHAHA LOOK WHO'S THE WINNER WINNER I AM I AM!" And then he'd turn around and claim some sort of "hero" status because of it.

  161. Foster says:

    @Ross
    The only land mark point i hope to see out of this case is that its the case that ends his career via disbarment or makes him take a long look at the sheer about of bat-shit crazy he has been spewing and changes himself.

  162. Valerie says:

    A landmark case? As long as we can call any outcome the Bearlove precedent.

    As in,

    Lawyer: "your honor, I believe you'll find that Bearlove allows us to…"

    (I know that is probably not how a lawyer addresses a judge – too much law and order.)

  163. W Ross says:

    What I'm hoping for is a crash and burn that's so spectacular that it discourages other lawyers from behaving this way. Right now Charles Carreon is wasting California tax dollars on a personal vendetta/extortion attempt.

    So I'm hoping to see him end up paying the defendants and courts costs, and hopefully at least slapped on the wrist by the bar. I write satire, and he's setting DANGEROUS precedent with this SLAPP case. If we're going to set a precedent, I want it to be "this ends VERY badly for the nuisance lawyer."

  164. Foster says:

    @Ross
    I'd hope for a lot more than a just a slap on the wrist if it goes before the bar considering her pervious acts of misconduct and the total over the top waste this case is.

  165. W Ross says:

    http://networkedblogs.com/z4Xm9

    "Right now the only thing that two genuine charitable fundraisers are having to compete with, is an asinine attorney forcing them to spend money that might go to help animals or cure cancer, and instead give it to other attornies who will have to use that money to teach Mr. Carreon how to read."

    Best line. Nice article!

  166. W Ross says:

    @Foster In my heart of hearts me too, but I suspect he's gotta go pretty far to get disbarred. Being a dickknob isn't illegal, it just will make you ridiculously unpopular.

    I'd be thrilled if that happened, though. Whatever happens, at least it won't happen in the dark. Good or bad, everyone will see it.

  167. Joe says:

    Ann, that is a stellar write up- great job!

  168. Ken says:

    "Charles Carreon has eaten all the clothespins."

    Magnificent.

  169. Foster says:

    @Ross & Ann
    Great find the best part (at least to me) was this
    “My haters have delusions of grandeur – they think 'they are the Internet' and their opinions matter to someone besides themselves.”

    Grandiose delusions or delusions of grandeur are a very real symptom of a mental disorder. If Charles Carreon were to seek professional help, and I believe he absolutely should, I am completely confident that any mental health professional would qualify starting one’s own religion, crusading against the “unwashed masses” with no support from anyone other than one’s own equally mentally disordered family members, and being legitimately surprised when corporations as large as Google do not personally respond to you or "pull the switch or click the box", as clear indicators of disordered thinking.

  170. W Ross says:

    OK so weird thought. Here (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/06/the-persecution-of-charles-carreon/2/) it says

    "This was an issue that we noticed a year ago, and Carreon confirms its truth. He became FunnyJunk’s DMCA agent as of May 25, 2012 (after sending the wrong amount of money to the Copyright Office a few days earlier), just in time to send Inman a letter on June 2. Until that date, the site appears to have been ineligible for any DMCA "safe harbor" protection from infringement suits.

    Still, Carreon says it doesn't matter now. "[FunnyJunk] now [has] an agent,” he said. “If someone wants to make something of the fact that they didn’t have an agent, there’s nothing to be made of it. There you go. It’s a fact. There’s no legal claim that can be made on it whatsoever. But you know, you always know that your adversary is scratching and having a problem when they’re looking at what we would call non-material, non-compliant stuff that would not be admissible as evidence.”"

    Now he's FunnyJunk's DCMA agent, AND American Buddha's, but Tara Carreon has said NUMEROUS times that American Buddha doesn't really respect DCMA.

    If he's the DCMA agent for two different sites that both infringe, can HE lose that designation? Because he's the agent for two clients who've shown to not actually follow the law.

    Longshot, dunno. Not my best.

  171. Foster says:

    I was also wondering about him being their DCMA agent. He gained that position almost 1 year after the original post by Matt and removal request at which point had no DCMA agent which would mean they have no claim to "safe haven" (or whatever it is called) prior to the 25th of May so could Matt (or other artists) at actions against funny junk for images that were posted prior to the 25th due to lack of them meeting DCMA requirements?

  172. W Ross says:

    Also didn't notice that he contacted ArsTechnica to express the hurt that comes from the backside region:

    "Update 2: Carreon wrote to Ars on Thursday afternoon: "You downplayed the problem of Internet charity fraud disingenuously, failing to note that the third link below, even though the first link below, about Tsunami charity fraud goes directly to the Washington Attorney General site. The problem is enormous, and minimizing the truth with a clever quip is not responsible, ethical journalism, but pandering to the mob: 'If you didn't believe this was one of the Internet's big problems, you are not alone).'""

  173. Foster says:

    “There are some things that you accept with grace," Carreon said. "But I do not accept that my mother engaged in bestiality and I do not accept that FunnyJunk slept with its mother, as it does not have a mother."

    at what point did any one state that funny junk had incestious relations with it's mother?
    And does he still not understand the nobody said her mother fucked a bear?

    this if from the Ars artical

  174. BEG65 says:

    @Noah Calloway: But there is no demand to take user content down. Inman himself complained about FJ's use of his material last year, but did not go to the point of trying to use DCMA to take the stuff down for pretty much the reasons you cite (plus the extensive amount of time it would have taken him). So he complained publicly, then let it be.

    Then a year later (now), we get that batshit lawsuit and this followup one.

    /pass the popcorn…

  175. Look at that says:

    Late last night, a question occurred to me:

    Carreon is CA only (inactive Oregon),
    if FJ is either (or both) Nevada/New York, and
    Inman is Washington State:

    Where is the legal standing for Carreon to write a threatening letter to Inman? Wouldn't a lawyer from Nevada, New York or Washington states have to do it?

  176. Mike K says:

    @Look at that
    I thought of the same thing, but I'm guessing that letter writing has been relegated to being a non-lawyer task so that it's not practicing law.
    Either that, or maybe because it would have been a federal case it didn't matter as long as he is a lawyer in one state.

    I'm not sure on either thought, but it would suck for a corporation to have to have a lawyer in every state in order to write letters threatening people.

  177. Ara Ararauna says:

    @Jay Lee – My thoughts precisely. I'm also believing that when the fund rising comes to an end and all the checks are sent to the individual charities (after being received as bills and arranged neatly for the Kodiak photo for Bryan), Charles will jump in and claim that Matt was cleverly forced to send the money to the charities because he donated to the fund and Matt had no other recourse that to reluctantly do as stated in his fund raising project.

    In other words, Charles will cling to a red-hot nail if it is to make sure that his ego is not tarnished by defeat. Or something like that… *squawk*

    Also @W Ross, thanks for all the lulzy links and posts. They are making my day.

    For me an atavist is simply a person that thinks that we are still living in the XVIII century or something and acts and thinks like back in that era, but that I suppose is called "being an anachronistic person". In biology, it would be simply someone with Down Syndrome, so, what is Carreon refering to, to the biology approach or to the anachronistic one?

    "An atavist refuses to acknowledge social restraints that prevent him from pursuing his exclusive personal benefit." <<< that describes the admin of FJ perfectly, in body and soul, why no one is noticing that Carreon seems to spit on his own client with that same rhetoric?

    The lolcoaster must roll on.

  178. Caleb says:

    Look at that @8:15 pm

    This lawsuit seems to be way out there. What if it were way out there on purpose? (as in crazy-like-a-fox?) What could be a positive outcome for he-who-shall-not-be-satirized?

    My guess? Advertising.

    Think about it. If you are a butthurt censorious asshat, do you want a lawyer who is fair-minded, follows the rules of professional responsibility to a letter, and only represents colorable claims and arguments to the court?

    Of course not!

    You want a lawyer who will make the person mocking you pay, no matter what. You want a lawyer who will "find a law" that will hurt them in some way. You want a lawyer who knows how to stretch a claim, and how to make subtle misrepresentations to the court. You want a lawyer who will "go to the mat," no matter how much both the laws and the facts move against your case.

    You want Charles Carreon.

    Right now, we are all in agreement that this lawsuit destroys Carreon's reputation. (So there is such this as bad press!) But that assumes that everyone thinks like us.

    I guarantee you that there is a certain (discreetly silent) percentage of the population who is watching this episode and taking notes. These are the people who want to inflict hurt on their enemies, regardless of the rule of law. They are the ones that see our institutions only as a means, and not as and end. And they are the ones Carreon is advertising to.

    Carreon is (trying to) ride the wave here. Its a good time to be a censorious douchebag.Today, all it takes is a Vaughey in the right place to do the damage desired. Carreon might also be testing the waters. If he receives no significant repercussions (Rule 11 violation, adverse anti-SLAPP ruling, ect.) he'll know he can pursue this line of "work" with relative impunity.

    So the outcome of this case will both determine the viability of roundabout censorious legal claims, and Carreon's willingness to carry them out. One hopes the courts are up to handling the task.

    (I saw in a previous comment that the judge given the case is associated with the ACLU. I hope this reduces the 'Vaughey risk factor'. We'll see.)

  179. Look at that says:

    @Caleb, thanks for the analysis. I can see if he's not punished, he'll be the go-to guy. Truly sad.

  180. Rakiura says:

    I can't help but feel that someone who got their law degree from the bottom of a Fruit Loops box, and thought the 'bar' exam was taking a sustained beating with a metal rod, might have fared better than Mr. Carreon in this instance.

  181. Ann says:

    San Jose Mercury News just published a terrible article about the situation, but it does contain some more interviews with Carreon & EFF.

    http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_20920354/oatmeal-website-cancer-and-wildlife-charities-sued-following

  182. Chris R. says:

    @Ann, that was a terrible article. Too bad it wasn't made before the satirical site did it's letter to the readers about bad reporting.

  183. @Ann — Not sure what's so horrible about it (or why the Carreons are praising it as the first actual news article). The guy takes some of Carreon's claims at his word (e.g., the idea that Inman's drawing was directed at Carreon's mom*) but… am I missing something?

    *I still don't get how people (especially Mr. Carreon) miss this. The letter was directed at FunnyJunk. It says "Your lawyer = A+" and then talks about "your mom" (I still can't believe this is an actual lawsuit). How can "your" simultaneously refer to two different people?

  184. W Ross says:

    The sad thing is they think "the Internet" is different from "everyone." They don't realize that they're abhorrent to everyone, not just some 4chan like sub-strata of the Internet. They expect that there will be some news story that "gets it right" and then there will be this mass flood of public support that will rush in and validate them.

    http://www.naderlibrary.com/bulletin_board/viewtopic.php?t=896&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=20&sid=eb39bf10e32ed9f8ce5143b54e09b081

    But yeah, Tara's posting again. They can't stay quiet for 24 hours. They literally cannot help themselves.

  185. W Ross says:

    (My favorite part was this line "The right answer to speech you don't like is more speech, not a lawsuit." cause now I know a thread poster's secret identity!)

  186. Foster says:

    @Adam at this point i believe Carreon is just making up claims as he goes because of this quote of his
    “There are some things that you accept with grace," Carreon said. "But I do not accept that my mother engaged in bestiality and I do not accept that FunnyJunk slept with its mother, as it does not have a mother."

    At no point to i recall any article or Mr. Inamn making remarks to suggest funny junk had incestuous relations with its mother nor that the mother depicted was his.

  187. Foster says:

    @Ross
    i kinda wanna join her forum to jsut tell her to stop and save grace then i sit back and laugh my ass off at the train weck.

  188. W Ross says:

    @Foster OK, so it's not just me! I've avoided signing up for it because I feel like that's too aggressive, but some part of me REALLY wants to talk this out. Been sorely tempted to click register, though.

  189. @Foster and Ross — for some lols, check out the terms of service required to register for the site. They promise not to reveal information about you to any third parties unless… they don't like you, basically. You have to tell them why you're registering, and you have to promise that you're not a government or political agent.

  190. Foster says:

    @Ross
    I have mulled it over a few time but every time i read what shes writing i am afraid ill reply with some thing like this "just shut up for god sakes you making matters worse foe every one including making your self look like a freaking lunatic"

  191. W Ross says:

    I feel like it's a honey trap. You get the sweet, sweet joy of interacting with Bellatrix Lestrange (oh yes, he did.)

    But ten bucks says something in that stupid TOS makes you agree to something you can't help but violate when while trying to have a conversation with Drusilla from Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

  192. W Ross says:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penguin_Group_(USA)_Inc._v._American_Buddha

    This has a Wiki now, and it's connected to his main Wiki.

  193. Foster says:

    @Adam
    I just read them and wow shes breaking her own tos on 3points

  194. Foster says:

    @ross
    I belave that another case his site was sued over posting books from the Penguin group its a great find but id love to seen the out come

  195. W Ross says:

    https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=257975040904528&id=255907524444613

    Here's a Tara Carreon fight you might not be familiar with. Here she explains how her and her husband operate in disturbingly plain language… (spoiler alert: They fight dirty and play aggressive ball.)

  196. W Ross says:

    https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=273784272656938&set=a.256058281096204.55150.255907524444613&type=1

    And here's here making a strong identification with Anonymous… ironic that Carreon would talk about how abhorrent misuse of computers is and his wife's Facebook group would hang an Anonymous banner :P.

  197. Foster says:

    She is freaking nuts on one site she posts there Buddhist, another atheist, another Jewish what is religion rule-let

  198. Look at that says:

    A commenter called Battle_Pony on Ars Technica has found some interesting links. Copyrights for FJ and Carreon and a bitter encyclopediadramatica entry about FJ

    Go to page 6 on the comments thread, and (at this writing) it's the last comment:

    http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/06/the-persecution-of-charles-carreon/?comments=1&start=200#comments-bar

  199. Foster says:

    also gust a thout but a title for mr. carreon's next book "how to attack the 1st amendment as you use it as a sheild"

  200. Margaret says:

    @Ann: That was a TERRIBLE article.

  201. W Ross says:

    @Lookatthat

    http://trademark.markify.com/trademark-correspondent/uspto/charles+carreon/48414

    Epic find. "A Friend With Weed is a Friend Indeed." LOL

  202. W Ross says:

    "Brandi Love" is a porn star. I just… this can't get funnier.

    I'd love to hear why he needs that one.

  203. Gal says:

    @Adam Steinbaugh: You're missing several things:

    "Caught up in the 56-year-old's lawsuit filed June 15 in San Francisco federal court are Matthew Inman, creator of the The Oatmeal; Indiegogo, a San Francisco website that helps people raise money online; and the American Cancer Society and National Wildlife Federation. " Caught up, not named as defendants or anything. The Charities were just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

    "Including the charities in the lawsuit has particularly enraged a legion of fans of The Oatmeal, already upset that Carreon brought an internet feud to the halls of justice." Because clearly, only fans of the Oatmeal could possibly be upset about this, and we're the only ones involved.

    "Inman, who depicts himself as a pterodactyl who will "ptero-you a new (expletive)", includes a video of how he handles his enemies on his site.

    "In his character as a carnivorous, prehistoric flying reptile that first rips the intestines out of a man's anus, then flogs him with his entrails, then steals a pineapple from a boy, tears his head off, flings it (at) a girl and knocks (her) head off, then grinds up the girl's head up in a wood-chipper, blends it with the pineapple, and drinks the grisly cocktail," Carreon explains in his lawsuit. He adds that Inman's followers embrace his "brutal ideology."" Do I really need to explain what's wrong here?

    It's a terrible, slanted article. Sorry.

  204. Nibor says:

    I ask myself what would happen if IndieGoGo searches the donations and figure out which one is from cc and then just before closing the fundraiser send the money back to cc with a nice apology that it wasn't possible to include his donation to the fundraiser, and advise him if he wanted his money to go to the two intended charities he have to donate directly to them, for the participation in the bearlove fundraiser is regrettably no longer possible due to it has closed.

    Would this not make the larger part of his lawsuit obsolete for he is no longer an part in the whole fundraiser, and/or is this legal to refund him, in other words is IndieGoGo allowed to do so?

  205. AlphaCentauri says:

    It appears that the 2165 Avenida Planeta address in Tucson is a private home, but also the address of the Maitreya School, where they have held public events:
    http://www.naderlibrary.com/nader.offlineevent3.htm
    http://www.naderlibrary.com/nader.offlineevent2.htm

    And Mr. Carreon represents the company with this trademark, which might explain a lot:
    http://trademark.markify.com/trademarks/uspto/a+friend+with+weed+is+a+friend+indeed/85525535

  206. Ann says:

    @Adam – it is poorly researched and based largely on Charles Carreon's version of what's going on. The part I find most egregious is this characterization that Matthew Inman uses the Pterodactly as an alter ego. Charles Carreon made the point first in his lawsuit and now this article states it as fact. As far as I know, the Pterodactly was just a comic he drew that was very popular, and so has been reincarnated a few times. The article makes Inman sound unhinged. At a minimum, they should have balanced that out with some of the nonsense that the Carreon's have spewed.

    The Carreon's belief that something is fairly worded should be the yard stick by, which we measure how terrible an article is.

  207. Foster says:

    @Ann
    While the article is mostly bull-shit it is the first article to have a statement from IndieGoGo
    "As the largest crowdfunding platform operating in nearly 200 countries Indiegogo exists to provide crowdfunding opportunities worldwide," said Slava Rubin, the company's CEO and co-founder, in a released statement, "and a frivolous lawsuit doesn't change Indiegogo's commitment to this creative and popular campaign."

    But beyond that and one other Quote form Inman's legal team the the article is crap.

  208. Mike K says:

    I'd say the bias in the article is more obvious in the summary.
    Inman claimed he found some of his comics posted on Funny Junk

    Really the article suffers from trying to be impartial by not making either side look clearly at fault. When even Carreon admits that the initial letter was wrong, it's bad to ignore things that both sides admit to.

  209. Foster says:

    @ann Wow i dont know how i missed that article my bad completly i retract my earlier statment that article is trash.

  210. theNuszAbides says:

    "THE PAIN!"

    one finds oneself wanting to tip one's hat to the carreon sisters, recognizing the urge to defend the family 'honor' but emphasizing that not every criticism is indistinguishable from personal attack (it seems maria acknowledges others' mention of popehat's analyses – only enough to mock the name) – it would be so much more comfortable and elegant a gesture if it didn't have to be cut into tweet-portions.

    one may even sympathize with numerous carreonesque political and spiritual positions (though marred by the supreme tackiness of, e.g., establishing a pro-enlightenment, pro-benevolence religion on a dot-COM site)… but one would first have to dismiss from one's mind the sad Wall-o'-Phail (their refusal to address – or to even indicate that they comprehend – pertinent inaccuracies and misinterpretations in their overwrought backlashes/'defense') which was one's introduction to their choices of personal expression…

    if, however, one may* be pardoned for speculating sincerely but somewhat baselessly (i.e. knowing nigh-infinitely more about one's own psychedelic experiences than any which the carreons may have [had])… it would not surprise one to discover that C&T have had at least two** Trips/Vision Quests/what-have-you together, and that their persecution complexes [on this phrase, one is aware that the speculation is in larger and more-indicated company] have been built up around the best and worst aspects of those experiences, embellished by their American Buddha… works and/or further application of controlled substances. while such a blend could contribute to the character-building of delightful party hosts, hip camp/rehab counselors and/or cult leadersspiritual guidance specialists, there is always the risk that participating in the Grand Conspiracy of "hippie-drug" users sends even a duo positively dripping with internet law, library science and philosophy[TM] down the slippery slope of Speshulsnoflakitis. ("shhh, baby… listen to our hearts, not to the clank-whirr of the NSA-issue Dreamstealer next door!")

    …that, or they are in the Try-Too-Hard school of ~clean living~ (don't you know Ashcroft 'cracked down on' LSD production merely so he could spike it all with nanotrackers and mind control juice?)

    * and even if one may not!
    ** one 'good', one 'bad'

  211. Chris R. says:

    @Ann & Foster, I tweeted the author of that article to let him know I felt his article was crap.

  212. A small victory — the author updated the article to note that Inman was referring to FJ's mom, not Carreon's.

  213. The key, I think, is not Inman's annotations on Carreon's initial letter, which (to be fair) could conceivably be read to refer to Carreon's mother, if one were hyper-sensitive to "your mom" jokes on the internet.

    Rather, Inman's description of the fundraiser on the IndieGoGo page removes any lingering possibility (emphasis added):

    Instead of mailing the owner of FunnyJunk the money, I'm going to send the above drawing of his mother.

    That page, of course, is attached to Carreon's complaint as his own exhibit.

    This doesn't even reach Hustler v. Falwell levels of butthurt. At least in that case, the drawing was actually of Falwell's mom.

  214. Mike K says:

    To me it seems somewhat dishonest to rewrite the article without at least adding mention to what was changed.
    The latest version seems to correct most of the points that were wrong and I'd probably consider it fair if I hadn't read the original

  215. @Mike — they're publishing a print correction, which I would imagine will also appear on the website at some point.

  216. Chris R. says:

    Sweet, the power of criticism.

  217. Jonathan says:

    Hi Ken, I thought this might be relevant:

    http://www.american-buddha.com/wanted-poster-matt-inman10.jpg

    It is something that was posted in a link by TaraCarreon (I think it is actually the real Tara Carreon but I can't be sure) on Techdirt. Basically, how the hell can he justify suing Inman over that bear picture if he puts up bullshit like this on his website (not to mention the other stuff there) and his wife walks around running her mouth off at anyone who disagrees in the slightest. I have always believed that while I am not religious, that is all the more reason to treat people with common human decency and respect because if we don't, who will? The fact that there are people who seem to find enjoyment from spiting others disgusts me. I really hope that Carreon finally decides to drop this debacle for his own sake, I really do but if he doesn't then I am not ashamed to say I will not be sorry when he gets his just desserts.

  218. W Ross says:

    @All Poor Chas. They were putting all their eggs on that article (Tara even put it up on "Wild in the streets!")

    I love how every point they liked so much was attributed to (mildly) slipshod research- and they're going to be corrected out.

    That's like giving someone a sliver of hope, then yanking it away so you can taste their delicious and salty tears.

  219. W Ross says:

    "It appears that the 2165 Avenida Planeta address in Tucson is a private home, but also the address of the Maitreya School, where they have held public events:
    http://www.naderlibrary.com/nader.offlineevent3.htm
    http://www.naderlibrary.com/nader.offlineevent2.htm"

    At this point I think it's ok to call them "Cult Meetings."

  220. W Ross says:

    https://twitter.com/#!/mgafni The author's tweets, where you can see that he got basically just Carreon's side (he probably talked to all lawyers and spokespeople, so he got the sanitized "we're not going into the muddy, dirty stuff" version.

  221. Foster says:

    @Chris R. – Thank you i would have but honestly i am still refusing to make a Twitter account.

    As for revisions i am happy to see that the author is open to criticism and is willing to fix their mistakes.

  222. Now taking bets on which shadowy group this conspiracy is getting blamed on.

  223. Foster says:

    @Adam – i don't think he has blamed the Free Masons yet

  224. Kryss LaBryn says:

    Oh my god. I just had the weirdest thought.

    Okay, you know how FunnyJunk kind of responded to the original C&D, and took some stuff down, but left loads up, and that was it for almost a year, and then suddenly, out of nowhere, Matt gets this demand for $20,000 from this lawyer, *made out to that lawyer*?

    Do– do we know that Carreon is, in fact, working for FunnyJunk?

    We haven't heard anything from FunnyJunk at all in all this. Meanwhile, we have a lawyer demanding payouts addressed to him, instead of being made out to his client; violating apparent client confidences; taking personal offense at a caricature *obviously* aimed at the owner of the FJ website rather than its lawyer; and then he not only goes and files a suit *on his own behalf* against Matt for stuff that is strictly between him and FJ, he goes and sues the NWF and ACS as well. And then writes a weird little rap song about it (seriously, dude? You're voluntarily associating yourself with Cortez? He was an asshole, man). And posts that on the net.

    Meanwhile, if he was legitimately working for FJ, you'd think FJ would have fired his ass and would be back-pedalling wildly to disassociate himself from that madman. And possibly filing suit against Carreon himself for acting so severely against his interests when he was representing FJ.

    So why haven't we heard anything from FJ himself? Has there been any mention of all this on his website? A brief search there myself turns up nothing about "Oatmeal", "Inman", nor "Carreon". And I don't see any mention of it there. Does he even know all this is going on?

    I am beginning to suspect that Carreon took it upon himself to use that prior disagreement between FJ and the Oatmeal to try and basically blackmail Matt into giving him $20,000 by misrepresenting himself as the legitimate legal counsel for FJ, when possibly, FJ not only has absolutely nothing to do with all this whatsoever, but isn't even aware that his own name is being dragged through the muck on Carreon's coattails.

    It *would* explain the apparent possible breach of lawyer-client confidentiality and why Carreon filed suit in his own name instead of FJ's. And why he demanded the money be sent to him instead of to his client, *c/o* him. Because seriously, what kind of a lawyer who is representing someone else goes and gets all offended that it is *his* mother being made fun of, and goes and not only writes but *publishes online* stupid snarky little rap songs about his client's case?

    Do we have any proof at *all* that Carreon is, in fact, working with FJ? Or that FJ is in the slightest aware of what's going on here?

  225. Gal says:

    Can any article that doesn't point out the glaring and obvious falsehoods in Carreon's account really be considered unbiased? Gafni has been made aware that some of the claims he himself reported were harebrained, but instead of calling bullshit he simply removed them. I understand he doesn't want to seem biased, but if he's omitting facts in order to achieve that, he simply isn't doing his job.

  226. Peachkins says:

    For those of you who were talking about the latest news article, there have evidently been some major changes to it. Unfortunately, I didn't get to see the original article, but based on the comments I've seen here it appears that the most egregious error- stating the pterodactyl comic is an accurate representation of Inman and how he deals with his enemies- has been completely taken out of the new version. No mention of pterodactyls anywhere. Here's the article for anyone who missed it:

    http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_20920354/oatmeal-website-cancer-and-wildlife-charities-sued-following

    I still giggle thinking about images of coded and illustrated pterodactyls being shown in an actual court document.

  227. Peachkins says:

    Gal- that is completely true. I would have preferred to see an edit at the bottom of the article as opposed to a total re-do. At least then people could see exactly what had changed and why.

  228. W Ross says:

    http://normantranscript.com/headlines/x399013661/Attorney-sues-Website

    LOL, so the now by the author confirmed as wrong story is going up on the AP. Matthias Gafni totally Carreoned that right up.

  229. W Ross says:

    http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120622/02062119427/gmacguffins-favorite-techdirt-posts-week.shtml

    New Techdirt Article.

    Best part: "The whole situation is freaking mind boggling, and so puerile it's irresistible. And while wildly entertaining, it's also terribly ugly and it's sad, and I truly wish Carreon had not taken this path. If he hasn't already, he's going to wind up jackin' it in San Diego, metaphorically speaking."

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbSJET3DiX8 Related.

  230. AlphaCentauri says:

    Not sure where FJ is on all of this. He/she/they are aware of Carreon's letter, as they are being much more studious at removing Oatmeal content from FJ as quickly as anyone links to it. And they haven't denied involvement in the current debacle, so I suspect they did let Carreon talk them into letting him write a letter for them.

    I suspect he has since retained a real lawyer who gave him useful advice: "Keep the infringing stuff off your website, delete the homophobic crap, don't comment publicly, and let me get you out of this mess while Carreon pursues his goal of reputational self-immolation."

  231. Jack says:

    @Look at that @W Ross, Re: the Carreon trademark page that you posted,

    Those aren't necessarily his trademarks those are trademarks he's the "correspondent on," he was the lawyer that filed the applications for his clients and is the point of contact for renewals or conflicts. He doesn't own the porn star or weed trademark (though that would be hilarious).

  232. W Ross says:

    @Jack Gotcha. Makes sense. New Comics Beat story, also. More of the stories are starting to put together all the hundreds of threads of this masterpiece of fail.

    http://www.comicsbeat.com/2012/06/23/oatmeal-vs-funnyjunks-fallout-gets-even-wider-batman-is-now-tangentially-involved/

    (Also, I declare us now and forever more, Popehat's Legion of Haters. >:D)

  233. The latest paranoid allegations are that one of the commentators here is being paid by Inman and is will be added as a defendant to the lawsuit if she keeps criticizing. I'm reposting the comment here with Ann's permission:

    This is one of the little lying bitches working for Matt Inman, if it's true her name is "Ann," and she's really a girl. "She's" very active on his behalf. I wonder how much he's paying "her." Actually, the person who first threatened was STStone. The "threat" she's referring to "family members" having made is this joke I made back to him that Charles would be subpoenaeing his harddrive to prove that he was a media mole, when he threatened to call Sony Pictures to complain about my Labyrinth screenplay post. "Ann" wants to make it the cause of a Crusade. Poor, little, fearful Ann who is afraid of being named as a DOES. Well, if she keeps it up, it could happen! We found out that the person impersonating Charles at Charles-Carreon.com is actually a girl. Is it perhaps "Ann"? If so, "Ann" is definitely going to get sued. She can count on it. But she won't be named as a DOES, rather as a named defendant.

    This is reaching absolutely absurd levels of censorious douchebaggery.

  234. Jack says:

    @W Ross, We need official 'Legion of Haters' t-shirts. For the shirt graphic, I picture an army of people riding bears and wearing pope hats.

    @Adam, I'm jealous that Ann is getting more of momma Carreon's attention than I am. :( I've emailed just about every publisher and media producer whose works she's infringing on her websites. Soon it won't be just Penguin that's suing them.

  235. Valerie says:

    @Ann (if that is your real name) – I'd take it as an honor that you have been officially slimed by the Carreon clan. Perhaps you will soon have your very own Tara Carreon original to put on the mantle.

    Meeting criticism with threats of meritless legal action does seem to be a family specialty.

  236. Ann says:

    Now I know what Matthew Inman must have felt like. He's just having an average evening at home, making sushi with his lady and some friends, and then boom. You've been served.

    I'm sitting here feeding my baby spinach ravioli and then, boom, someone just threatens my constitutional rights and tries to intimidate me. It's surreal.

    There are a lot of things that poor, little, fearful Ann is afraid of.

    The Carreons do not make the list.

  237. Jack says:

    @Ann, You're right not to worry, they're full of hot air. If he went after you or any other commenters or bloggers he'd be on even shakier legal ground than he already is. That would also make it pretty clear to the Bar that he views the law as a club that he can use to bully people for personal gain and to settle grudges.

  238. Tomas - University Place, WA says:

    A schizophrenic vexatious twatwaffle indeed. *sigh*

    It seems Charles was extremely fortunate in finding his true soulmate – his bat-shit crazy wife – but it's a shame about the kids. :(

  239. Valerie says:

    Tara has proposed a name to use instead of "legion of haters." She recommends "cannibal kids."

    Oh, and the conspiracy hates dolphins.

    http://www.naderlibrary.com/bulletin_board/viewtopic.php?t=896&start=20

  240. Ann says:

    @Jack – that doesn't seem to have stopped him before.

    @Valerie – Cannibal Kids has a nice ring to it. You really can't go wrong with alliteration.

  241. For the record, I love dolphins. Cats make better pets, though.

  242. Tomas - University Place, WA says:

    Heh. I'm 66 this year – can I still be one of the Cannibal Kids? Huh? Huh? :D

  243. Jack says:

    @Valerie, I don't even bother to look at their websites now that I've emailed links to the owners of all of the copyrights violated by their "library". Tara Carreon's bat-shit crazy rantings aren't worth taking the time to read. You can bet that Inman's legal team are recording every once of her web-crazy to show the Judge.

    Acknowledging her nonsense only feeds the crazy, and that woman appears to be very mentally ill.

  244. Jack says:

    Also, she's probably recording the IP address of every computer that visits her servers, just so Chuckie can subpoena ISPs (chuckle).

  245. Tomas - University Place, WA says:

    Hey! Wait a minute! I can't be one of the Cannibal Kids. I don't accept that the Carreons and I belong to the same species…
    :P

  246. Jack says:

    I've changed my gravatar, just so that they know I'm part of the great conspiracy.

  247. Ann says:

    @Adam – I don't hate dolphins, but I don't want one to touch me. They're a little too gang rapey for me.

  248. Mike K says:

    Well I can't imagine hating the dolphins. They are the second most intelligent species on the planet, just above humans.

  249. Foster says:

    @Ann – im a lil jelous you get to be mocked by the great crazy ones

    but Cannibal Kids sounds great but can we sent shirts to the Carreons that read "Biggest train wreck of 2012"

  250. Valerie says:

    @ Jack You're probably right about her mental state. Implying that the creator of Lil' Abner was involved in John Lennon's death would seem to clinch that.

    It would be easier to be sympathetic if these two weren't trying to injure so many innocent people and set a dangerous legal precedent. But you're right – its probably not sporting to feed the crazy and they seem impervious to social censure.

  251. AlphaCentauri says:

    I wondered whether Ann was singled out because of her careful review of evidence on various websites, or because she clearly has some familiarity with the inner workings of web hosting. Or maybe because she's an English major and the Carreon's have declared war on the language. But it appears it's because she had the temerity to speak truth to powerful craziness. Tara Carreon does not like to be challenged in direct conversation. God help her neighbors.

  252. BREAKING: Oatmeal cartoons blamed for public tolerance of dolphin concentration camps. Developing . . .

  253. Foster says:

    @Adam
    Don't tell the Correons they will be in support of putting species that have higher mental capacities in to concentration camps and try to sue the world for letting them free.

  254. W Ross says:

    I kinda like the "Legion of Haters" thing too. I'd wear the shirt. :)

  255. SPQR says:

    Well I can't imagine hating the dolphins. They are the second most intelligent species on the planet, just above humans.

    I can't think of a better reason to hate them.

  256. W Ross says:

    Also, @Tara Carreon

    My name is Will Ross, and I'm a satirist of little note. I am not afraid of your threats, however. I have done nothing but report, aggregate, and pass information around.

    If you want to pick a fight with a Satirist you're certainly welcome to, but I will drink your milkshake.

    Will Ross
    XXOOXXOOXXOO

  257. Foster says:

    @Ross

    Tera (mockinly): My milkshake bring all the boys to the yard and there like its better than yours

  258. W Ross says:

    LOL. She was yelling at us, then she got bored and was more interested in the other thing she was talking about… so she decided to just talk about that instead.

  259. Foster says:

    wait she has things to do besides rant crazy online i thought that was her species form of feeding

  260. Valerie says:

    Would Ralph Nader have a case against them for associating his name with their batshit? I mean I don't know what his opinion is about their site, but would he have legal recourse if he didn't want his name associated with photoshopped penises? Just curious.

  261. Ann says:

    @Valerie – I don't know what Ralph Nader thinks personally, but his campaign staff was less than thrilled with her…um…devotion.

    http://naderlibrary.com/bulletin_board/viewtopic.php?t=701&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0&sid=170fff35c61042a66af8ffafc07b5553

  262. Valerie says:

    @ Ann Um, wow.

  263. Foster says:

    well the ralph nader compaign will be more detramented by her support then helped she should support who she wants to loose

  264. W Ross says:

    Tara's Law = Conversations will START at a Nazi reference, and inevitably end in a reference to Walt Disney.

  265. Chris R. says:

    Best line from Tara ever "I've been disturbed for some time now," how appropriate.

  266. Valerie says:

    The Nader stuff actually makes me feel kind of bad for her. He is obviously someone she idolizes and lionizes, yet she simply can't stop herself from alienating his campaign because she is incapable of responding to critics (defined as anyone who has an idea even slightly different from her own) with anything other than a vulgar screed and the inevitable adding of their names to the great conspiracy. If she could figure out how to reasonably disagree with other people, she'd be much better off. Instead, its foot-bullet after foot-bullet.

    The fact that she attributes Nader's silence towards her as a result of the "mafia" that surrounds him is kind of psychological self-defense against the realization that her hero is not exactly who she thinks he should be and does not share her entire agenda and may not even value her *ahem* efforts to promote his campaign. I think that kind of revelation would be something akin to the death of God for her. :(

  267. W Ross says:

    I don't feel bad for Tara Carreon. She is choosing to speak, and she is choosing to speak publicly. She is choosing to say inflammatory things.

    She has a LONG history (5+ incidents) of flame war and trolling. She went to no less than three websites to start trouble, and calls people out (again, publicly.) She's threatened at least two people with Lawsuits.

    As for if she's mentally ill, then she needs to get some help. But nobody is going to Tara Carreon's house and saying "hey, come talk to us." Tara Carreon is popping up places, starting fights, then when she LOSES those verbal fights she runs off and plays the wounded victim.

    So I refuse to feel sorry. If she doesn't want to lose verbal/fact fights, she ought not start them. The quickest way for her to limit the number of people in arguments with her is to not engage- which she refuses to do.

  268. Valerie says:

    In my new gravatar pic, you can see my cat standing on my shoulders and watching what I type. He is paid by inman to make sure I am fulfilling my duty to the grand illuminanti by making jokes and comments that mock the penis art ralphnader library. If I stop typing, the cat wil latch onto my head and then…. the bearo-dactyl comes…… And I weep

    And since we are dealing with crazy careeons, the stuff I wrote directly above is not true. The CIA is writing the checks – Inman just leant them the bears- o-dactyl.

  269. Chris R. says:

    Lol. Charles Carreon is freaking John Lennon. http://imgur.com/JHriw

  270. Chris R. says:

    Also here is an image of Tara accusing Ann of being a first a man, then a female author of charles-carreon.com. She can't even decide in one post the gender of a person. I blurred the face so you can share it with others. http://imgur.com/L9xKo

  271. W Ross says:

    http://www.aaronkellylaw.com/affiliate-marketing-law/carreon-inman-dmca-lawyer-marketing/

    New article. Check it.

    @Chris R I think(?) that's a satire site. It's so dry it's hard to tell.

  272. Er — note that the ASPCA story is satirical. Definitely had me confused as to what the hell kind of legal theory they'd have to use to support that.

  273. Chris R. says:

    Noted, didn't read the giant image on top.

  274. Happens to the best of us. I just learned that the name of this website has to do with hating the Pope.

  275. Chris R. says:

    Why else would you steal the man's hat? J/K didn't realize it myself.

  276. Jonathan says:

    @Ann

    I'm fairly sure "Charles Carreon" validates that it IS possible to go wrong with alliteration. Suppose he screwed that one up for us too…

  277. Just sayin'... says:

    Does anyone else find http://www.oestia.com/ more than a little ironical, given a certain post on facebook (referenced earlier in this thread):
    "Occupy Tucson 'For the record: I have no respect for Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, Paganism or Luciferism. Does that make me an anti-semite. No. It makes me an atheist. Which I proudly lay claim to. Religion is the cause of all the trouble in the world. Give me a world without religion so I can live in peace!'
    October 9, 2011 at 4:45pm · Like"

    She's an atheist, who starts her own religion?

  278. Tali says:

    Wow…just when I thought this couldn't get any stupider. I'm truly sorry Ann, if you do end up in court over what you've said (if for no other reason than the headache that I'm sure it will involve, as you are obviously in your legal right to say everything you've said, even if you really are the person behind charles-carreon.com)
    You know the Carreons have taken this too far when my husband begs me not to "be careful" with the comments I post, and asked me not to write a blog post comparing Carreon to Robert O'Keeffe (see one of my earlier posts) out of fear that they will sue me for threatening him or something by insinuating that he will end up dying alone, broke and defeated (which is what happened to O'Keeffe…he died of natural causes, sever years after loosing his last case, BTW)

  279. BearLoveGirl says:

    Aw crap, I forgot to close my href tag thing. Sorry!

  280. Ann says:

    For the record, I am not behind any of the parody accounts, but I fully support the right of anyone to parody or satire a public figure as long as they make it clear that it is parody and satire. Ironically, that includes Tara Carreon. If she wants to draw penises on people's faces or call me a "lying little bitch" that is her opinion and she has a right to express it without fear of litigation, as long as it is clear that it is her opinion and she doesn't infringe on any copyrights in the process.

    @Tali – yeah I posted the Nader link on my Facebook page and when my husband got home I got the usual, "Luccccccccyyyyyy."

    He learned a long time ago, that telling me not to do something is the equivalent of a double dog dare. Poor guy! ;)

  281. Valerie says:

    @ W Ross. I get what you're saying about how they keep picking fights, but I think Tara's world is colored by shit-covered glasses and she can't remove them. She sees boogiemen literally everywhere, and I don't think she can turn it off. Everywhere she looks, she sees evidence of an existential threat that must be met with full force.

    She doesn't believe in mainstream religions, which is fine, but the elevation of Nader to an untouchable demiGod and the way she describes her husband a s some kind of saintly John Lennon reminds me of how old USSR, after outlawing Orthodoxy, had to create a substitute cult of personality, complete with a waxy-dead Lenin to admire. This kind of thing gives some people meaning in life. Many people need faith in something, complete with rituals and saints. (Stalin, for instance, is now a popular icon among religious people in Russia. Never mind that he suppressed the church and killed all those people) Even without formal religion and God, people need to feel like part of something big and important – usually this just gets siphoned off into sports fandom, a political campaign, or some similar, harmless, activity. And then sometimes it doesn't.

    Lately I've experienced a more benign situation with my boyfriend's mother. Lets just say she has some interesting theories about catholics & jews (in her mind jews are still mad about the Holocaust and take every opportunity to injure Germans. Catholics just suck).

    The crazy on the cake is that she believes both groups are working together with the sinister children of her half brother to steal her house or something. In this conspiracy, I am the catholic temptress that will steal her darling son and make catholic devil-span babies with him. And after many happy years of marriage, the catholic devil-spawn will inherit the money and "the Jews" have their revenge. and… .

    Fortunately, my would be mother in law has poor computer skills (although the IRS and FBI have received some wonderful rambling letters). delusions only annoy those around her. You can try to logically argue that her theory is fucking nuts, but that's water off a duck's back. As this crazy is contained and deemed not to be a threat to itself or others, it is mainly tolerated and corrected (although the IRS and FBI have received some wonderful rambling letters). Her loving family has asked her to see a shrink, but she will not. I'm guessing, Tara won't either. Both she and my prospective mother in law would likely benefit from some psych care and drugs, but that seems unlikely because undoubtedly the doctors are part of the great "THEM" that stalks their daily lives.

    The hypocracy and friviolous law suits are outrageous and make me very angry, but, I am really beginning to believe that Tara Carreon's perception on reality is so screwed up that she literally cannot end the self-destruct sequence herself. That's the part I feel bad about. It must be a wretched little world to live in.

  282. Chris R. says:

    @Ann you might not be behind any parody account, but I see you haven't confirmed or denied any knowledge or participation in the illuminati. So I will take your silence as implicit confirmation that you are a high ranking member of the so called enlightened.

  283. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Ann: If Mr Carreon does send a subpoena or a request for deposition your way…

    a) Make sure that Ken's "Meet and Confer" letter closes with "snort my taint". :) And waive attorney/client privilege so he can post it…

    b) It might be something the state Bar would highly disprove of: Using subpoenas to harass third parties solely because they are online critics of you and your wife's behavior, especially combined with Tara's threats to "You'll need a protective order to keep your porn stash secret" to other posters, certainly paint a picture of someone who should not be licensed to practice law.

  284. Valerie says:

    @ Chris R Quiet, you fool! There's no illuminati. Shhhhhhh! :(

    Although, our secret society does need a cool t-shirt logo… I vote for "legion of haters" with the graphic art described by @ Jack. "Cannibal Kids" has a nice ring to it, but I think most of us are not kids. There is nothing sadder than an aging cowboy hipster wannabe passing himself off as some kind of kid.
    http://www.american-buddha.com/arizonakid.toc.htm

  285. Nibor says:

    @Ann, Somehow I doubt the "poor" guy disagrees with you that he is ;-)

  286. Nibor says:

    Sorry I meant agrees with you :-(

  287. Chris R. says:

    @Jack can I use your gravatar too?

  288. Ann says:

    @Nicholas – I am pretty confident this is an empty attempt to "scare" me into shutting up. I have made all my commentary completely in the open, and I stand behind each and every point I've made. They have no proof whatsoever that I've done anything, but criticize them, because none exists.

    Here's where I am struggling. I don't care about her personal remarks about me (calling me a bitch, a liar, accusing me of getting paid by Inman, etc). That is her opinion, and, frankly, I have been called worse.

    Where I get heated is the threat of suit. When my family and others, for example @Tali's, start making remarks like "be careful", "please don't post that", etc, isn't that exactly what we are mad about? We should not have to be afraid to speak the truth as we see it or share our opinions, and this man being licensed to practice law is the source of that fear in this circumstance. That's what makes me feel like i should get all letter writey.

    I don't know. Where's the line?

  289. Valerie says:

    @ Ann I think sometimes the crazy and nastiness overshadows the key points:

    He wants to set a precedent that may destroy crowd sourcing sites like indiegogo, which do a lot of good in the world http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/06/22/f-online-crowdfunding.html.

    He wants to set a precedent that major charities like the WWF have to police and be held responsible for every single bake sale fundraiser held in their name.

    Most significantly, Charles Carreon wants to rape the first amendment while you watch. By setting a precedent that restricts satirical speech on the internet, he wants his foes to shut up or pay the price, and if that opens up a freedom destroying can of worms, so be it.

    Charles' lousy raps & Tara's penis art are a really a non issue (except insofar as they highlight the need for better mental health care in the US and provide a textbook example of epic hypocrisy).

    What makes these buffoons dangerous people is their desire to undermine the first amendment to extort money from the gullible and silence any one who would try to say "Hay, stop doing that, it makes you look an asshat punching a dolphin."

    Thank goodness for the pope hat lawyers and others who have offered pro-bono services to people targeted by these litigious bastards. They really should have golden legion of hate t shirts.

  290. Tali says:

    http://www.dailytech.com/Website+Funny+Junk+Steals+The+Oatmeals+Work+Sues+Charities/article25004.htm

    Yet another poorly researched/written article about the case. Not as bad as the one from yesterday, but there are several glaring errors (like FunnyJunk is suing Inman, Inman is running American Buddah, and Inman created a charity to raise the funds)

    I posted in the comments what I feel needed to be corrected. It will be interesting to see if the author changes anything

  291. Jack says:

    @bearlovegirl That, is a thing of beauty.

    @Chris R, go for it.

  292. @Tali – augh, so depressing to think that the 'Telephone Game'/'whisper down the lane'/etc. Effect is just as applicable to a chain of having unchanging text that can be referred to repeatedly, as apparently-not-so-distinct from inflection/memory degradation in 'pure' unrecorded verbal transfers.

  293. Jack says:

    For what it's worth, I think it's entirely possible that the Carrions have created the parody blog and twitter accounts just to make them appear like they're the victims. Think about it, he donated to the charities just so that he would have standing to sue, and we haven't heard a thing about any actual subpoenas; because why would he want to subpoena proof that he's the actual culprit?

  294. Dan Weber says:

    isn't that exactly what we are mad about?

    This is a major talking point of our hosts. The use of (threats of) lawsuits to shut people up is what makes someone a censorious douchebag.

  295. Jack says:

    I sincerely hope that no one is actually self-censoring out of concern that they'll be sued. He's a blowhard, and he's been thoroughly exposed as such by his own words and deeds. If you self-censor, even one little bit, you hand that censorious fuckwad a small victory. Screw that, let him read what the world truly thinks of him, and let him stew in his pitiful soup of delusion and microphallic rage. If he doesn't like our opinions, he can stop visiting sites like this and STFU.

  296. Valerie says:

    @ Jack Well said.

  297. Ann says:

    I'm not suggesting self censorship. I'm quite certain I lack the gene for that anyway (as my parents will both lament).

    I'm asking if it makes me a hypocrite, if I write a letter to the California (Arizona? Oregon? Where are we again?) bar about Carreon effectively threatening me with a lawsuit, by allowing his wife to do so on a website he owns and to which he contributes?

    My complaint is not the personal attacks (Although, I do wish she had at least linked to my blog! Ha!). My complaint is the that the ramifications of the "If you don't shut up, you're going to be a named defendant" threats are that others might self censor.

    I don't want to be accused of hypocrisy or being butthurt myself, though, and muddy what the issues here really are.

  298. Jack says:

    @Ann, I was thinking about doing the same thing. I'm not sure if the Bar would actually care, but it might be worth a try. Maybe if it's brought to their attention, they'll actually do something about this abuse of the courts and the use of legal threats to attempt to silence critics.

    I was also thinking that it might be worth starting an online petition to send to the CA Bar, and see if we can't get their attention with a few thousand signatures. Public outcry certainly got George Zimmerman charged and indicted, maybe it can also get the Bar to review Carreon's behavior.

  299. Tali says:

    I think, at least in my case, the reason why my husband wants me to be careful of what I say is not directly the threat of a lawsuit or the possibility of loosing (which he knows is very small). I think its more what the ramifications of it could be in our life. He knows as well as I do, that should I (or Ann, or anyone else in who comments/blogs about it) be named in the suit that Popehat will get us the pro bono help we need. But even with that, the hassle of the whole thing could have a serious effect on our lives. I'm pregnant (due any day now), we are planning on moving halfway across the country in another month or so in search of better work (thus also implying we don't have a lot of money), and I'm not exactly always of good health. I think his concern is just that it would be one more thing I'd have to deal with, and I respect that. That is why I am considering not writing my long analysis post, but I haven't decided yet. It would be out of respect for my husband, not out of a fear for those bullying douchebags. If I was still single and care-free (or at least not a mom) I wouldn't even think twice about what I posted where. But I feel that my first duty is to take care of my family, and if that means self-censoring, then that is what I have to do.

  300. AlphaCentauri says:

    @Jack, while the motivation is there (to have created the fake Twitter account and website), I don't think any of the Carreons appear to have enough mental capacity to write the comment. Effective satire requires significant intelligence and an ability to understand other people's points of view. And it's hard for people to effectively satirize a position they legitimately believe, especially if they're batshit crazy.

  301. Ann says:

    @Tali – those are very real fears and exactly why his litigiouness and fear mongering abuses of his position as an attorney are so egregious. You have to think about your family first.

  302. Tali says:

    @Ann exactly. And my personality is such that I usually would be more than happy to be defiant and keep acting within my rights (I'm currently involved in another, not wholly different issue, where one of the managers at the store my husband works at (but not for, he works for a sub-contracted company) and I worked at until I resigned to for health reasons in the last 3 months of my pregnancy has told me that I am only allowed in the store if I am actively shopping because I "spend too much time there" and "everyone knows [me] because [I] used to work there." The store is a block away from the hospital, and we only have 1 car, so occasionally if I don't want to sit at starbucks all day, I'll spend some time in the store (usually just until my husband's lunch break, but sometimes the whole shift). I know they don't have a right to do that, so I still stay there, daring the manager to throw me out).
    I'm not one to be bullied, but I do have other people besides myself to worry about now. I sure hope the Carreons are stopped, and soon, so that the web can go back to being the place of free expression (and wantonly calling people you disagree with "fags" or something) that it has always been. People like Carreon and Kimberlin need to be taught a lesson in free speech.

  303. Tali says:

    So can someone tell me if this rebuttal makes any sense?

    In my comment on the DailyTech article (pointing out the errors in the article. I suppose I should also email the author, but I'm in my second day of early labor only have so much energy) I say the following:

    The next commenter counters by saying the following:

    I think, for the most part this commenter agrees with my analysis as a whole (the previous quote excluded), but I'm not sure
    I'm just trying to understand how on earth Carreon could be still acting on behalf of FunnyJunk in this lawsuit, where he is representing himself and seeking damages for himself, not FunnyJunk. Yes he mentions FJ as a client in the complaint, but I don't think that his claims of "FJ lied to me" (which the commenter does in their response to me) proves that this whole thing is still about FJ.

  304. Valerie says:

    @ Tali Congratulations on your upcoming arrival :)

    This is exactly why these folks need naming and shaming (and hopefully a judicial ass kicking). Good old Chuck has a power that most of us don't – his lawyer will work for free and is available 24/7 to work on his vendetta case (although I hear he sux).

    If I threaten to sue you because you caused me butthurt, it would obviously be a hollow threat – I'd need to pay a lawyer, take time off work to come to court, and generally disrupt my life. When a professional lawyer decides to press the same meritless claim, he can punish you without bothering to wait for a judge or jury to find fault.

    Look out for your family & your own health. Your analysis would be an awesome read, but these bozos are set on self-destruct anyway. If they actually named a poster from this site or any other, they would just make their case even more obviously absurd.

    Oh, and for the record, Al Capp died more than a year before John Lennon. Whatever you think of Capp (kind of a jerk in his old age, IMHO), it is highly unlikely his ghost shot John Lennon.

  305. Tali says:

    GAH! I fail and HTML tags. I say this
    "Aside from the first letter Mr. Carreon sent Inman, his actions have been his own, not on behalf of FunnyJunk. The title on the official case paperwork is "Charles Carreon v Matt Inman, et al." not FunnyJunk. Carreon was listed as attorney pro se (meaning he is representing himself). In fact, aside from Carreon sending the letter on behalf of FunnyJunk, FunnyJunk has been completely silent during this whole thing. So to say that Inman's response "Outraged FunnyJunk's owners and Mr Carreon" is not only inaccurate, but unfair to FunnyJunk to implicate them in Mr Carreons crusade."

    They respond with this:
    "Carreon isn't operating on his own, his client is hiding on purpose. Carreon's own words, which FunnyJunk doesn't deny."

    This part of the previous post was not supposed to be in block quotes:
    I think, for the most part this commenter agrees with my analysis as a whole (the previous quote excluded), but I'm not sure
    I'm just trying to understand how on earth Carreon could be still acting on behalf of FunnyJunk in this lawsuit, where he is representing himself and seeking damages for himself, not FunnyJunk. Yes he mentions FJ as a client in the complaint, but I don't think that his claims of "FJ lied to me" (which the commenter does in their response to me) proves that this whole thing is still about FJ.

    Sorry about that >.<

  306. Tali says:

    @Valerie

    Thank you! :) We are, at this point, impatiently awaiting our baby's arrival (I'm getting VERY uncomfortable as he is VERY low, and causing literal butthurt (from hemorrhoids) on top of the contractions and general discomfort)

    I completely agree. Most people will threaten legal action, but few have the time or money to actually pursue a suit, a lawyer on the other hand can get his work pro bono and devote all the time in the world to it. Legal bullying is the worst kind of bullying. I really do hope that the CA Bar will take a serious look at his actions and at least reprimand him, if not disbar him.

  307. Ann says:

    @Tali – Congrats!! I remember all too well those last weeks. Brutal.

  308. AlphaCentauri says:

    Carreon's got to have a lot of time on his hands, too. It's hard to imagine any other clients retaining him. And his insistence that large companies like Mattel retain him as their attorney just because he emailed them smacks of desperation, craziness, or both.

  309. Ann says:

    Out of curiosity, does anyone know what came of him sueing the guy he represented in the sex.com case?

    http://m.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2001/03/42328

  310. C says:

    In 2002, the fee arrangement was ruled void because it was 'not clear what the 15% encompassed. http://www.law.com/regionals/ca/stories/edt0419b.shtml

  311. Gal says:

    @Tali – perhaps one of us can act as a mouthpiece? I'm sure most of us, or whoever runs censoriousdouchebag would be willing to post on behalf of "a person who shall remain namelss."

  312. Chris R. says:

    @Gal @Tali @Ann,

    Saw this just now. http://charles-carreon.com/be-heard/

  313. Ann says:

    Carreon said his relationship with Kremen soured after the domain name was returned on summary judgment and Kremen took over operations of sex.com. Carreon, who said he was acting as sex.com's in-house counsel, said he and Kremen clashed about the site's content. Carreon said he wanted to remove obscenity.

    Yeah. I'm sure that's exactly what happened.

  314. Chris R. says:

    @Ann yeah what sort of porn does sex.com have if it's worse than Bush / Condolezza stuff his wife did?

  315. Chris R. says:

    “I was affected by the image of people cowering in fear who were unable to rally themselves until one person did three things — they had a badge, they had skill and they had the courage to use it. And they ended up the hero. And that has always been the role that I have enjoyed playing,” Carreon said.

    http://blogs.seattletimes.com/monica-guzman/2012/06/23/showdown-why-seattle-cartoonist-the-oatmeals-brilliant-joke-may-have-backfired/

    WTF?

  316. Chris R. says:

    We know what the townspeople think: Carreon is a nuisance, shooting blanks.

    Now that is the best quote ever.

  317. Gal says:

    He wanted to remove obscenity from sex.com? What next, removing cats from lolcats.com?

  318. alexa-blue says:

    Googling the sordid details of Kremen and Carreon's relationship gives funny results. Funny, and at this point, familiar. A warm blanket of weird.

    Having been introduced to one another by Kremen's girlfriend, who was also Carreon's ex-girlfriend at law school, the relationship became more incestuous when Kremen started dating Carreon's daughter, Ana, who he had brought in to help on the case. The two friends also started taking alot of drugs together – something that Kremen claims led to Carreon's making vital mistakes in the case.

    When Carreon attempted to bring incense sticks into court and was prevented from doing so, Kremen realised he needed a different lawyer to prosecute the case

    http://www.sexdotcom.info/story/people/charles-carreon.htm

    Such was his impact that Kremen pulled Idell into other work for him, including fighting Charles Carreon's case against Kremen, which led at one point to Carreon's wife attacking Idell in the courtroom. Idell pulled in Wagstaffe and then continued as co-attorney in the case.

    http://www.sexdotcom.info/story/people/richard-idell.htm

    NB: looked only quickly and could not verify from any other sources.

  319. AlphaCentauri says:

    From Carreon's online resume:

    "Mazursky, Schwartz & Angelo

    During 1990-1993, I was a litigation associate at the plaintiff-side powerhouse lawfirm founded by superstar lawyers Chuck Mazursky, Arnie Schwartz and Chris Angelo. From Chuck, I learned the power of storytelling, charisma, and unimpeachable honesty. From Arnie, I learned the importance of preparation, brevity, and unwavering commitment to the client’s cause. From Chris, I learned that the key to success is anticipating and negating every eventuality that could lead to the destruction of your case. The three years during which I had the privilege of working with these remarkable gentlemen of the bar were the most formative of my career, and to them I owe my ability to make my way as an independent advocate."

    Wow, talk about damning with faint praise.

  320. Chris R. says:

    @AlphaCentauri, Yeah Chuck must feel real good about being Charles' mentor on honesty x.x

  321. Jess says:

    @Chris R. – Apparently the lesson from Chris didn't stick to well eihter.

    ^ ^
    0 0
    -

  322. Chris R. says:

    They should sue him for defamation.

  323. AlphaCentauri says:

    "They should sue him for defamation."

    You have to wonder, "Where are they now, and why isn't he with them?" There may be a settlement agreement that prevents them from commenting on his statement.

  324. Chris R. says:

    When Carreon attempted to bring incense sticks into court and was prevented from doing so, Kremen realised he needed a different lawyer to prosecute the case. A lawyer Kremen had brought in to fight Cohen's trademark claims, Richard Idell, recommended a star prosecutor, James Wagstaffe.

    http://www.sexdotcom.info/story/people/charles-carreon.htm

  325. Foster says:

    @alphacentauri – i bet there hiding faraway form anything Carreon gets near leagley speaking

    @alexa-blue – the him on drugs thing does not suprise me one bet i wonder if hes on anyhtign for this case too

  326. Foster says:

    @ross _ mabey im missing somethign but in this quote

    "If Matt Inman had been working for the Pentagon during World War II, and had Disney's job, this is how he might have misogynistically portrayed Germany — as a fat, stupid, lustful woman to be hated and reviled — in "Hitler's Children: Education for Death; The Making of the Nazi."

    Which is to say, that Matt Inman could have easily done Disney's job.

    Have you seen Matt Inman's depiction of Canadians as pet animals?

    This is also how Matt Inman's friends portray me in their hate emails to Charles.

    If you want to get people to hate something, you gotta get 'em to hate it as a woman. Because woman is the nigger of the world."

    is she saying that matt would have been in supprt of nazi germany and he thinks women are a subclass of person?

  327. Chris R. says:

    @W Ross, wow. I want to quote it, but my copy and paste won't got near that sentence.

  328. moo says:

    That woman is a nut. Who knows what she's trying to insinuate…

  329. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Ann: If you don't have an attorney in your corner, or if you have an attorney you have to pay for, a subpoena is a pain. A big, EXPENSIVE pain.

    But if you have a good attorney paid for, or pro bono (e.g. the EFF, or Ken, who'd you have in about a nanosecond), its rather an interesting experience.

    Not to mention, if they were absolutely insanely foolish enough to sue you, or even to include you in a subpoena, then its pretty clear they are using the legal system for personal revenge, which is a big No No for the California State Bar (which is the only one Carreon is currently licensed at…)

  330. Thorne says:

    And now she thinks SHE'S John Lennon, too?!

    Can't wait for the "bigger than Jesus" quote now.

    Yikes.

  331. Valerie says:

    Sooooo – in this analogy, Inman is Walt Disney writing anti-Nazi propaganda. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't that make Carreon Hitler (or at least a Nazi)?

  332. W Ross says:

    Maria Carreon and Ana Carreon are dramaing too. http://twitter.com/#!/bybeautydamned and http://twitter.com/#!/passion_lib

    Must be a full moon.

  333. Tali says:

    This is interesting…
    http://www.dailytech.com/Website+Funny+Junk+Steals+The+Oatmeals+Work+Sues+Charities/article25004.htm

    My comment on this article pointing out some errors in the article has been hidden for low ratings (I'm currently at a -1, while the person who quasi-rebuts me is at a +2). Have I accidentally stumbled into a group of Carreon supporters?

    On the plus side, the author of the article corrected the part where he said Inman ran American Buddah. He didn't change any of the other errors I pointed out, though (such as the fact that Carreon is representing himself, not FJ in the suit)

  334. Tali says:

    @Valerie That seems like the logical conclusion. Although I doubt Tara sees it that way, but of course I'd never accuse her of being logical.

  335. W Ross says:

    The daughters are going batshit on people on the twitter.

  336. W Ross says:

    Yep. It's sad when you have to secretly warn people "ZOMG, don't provoke them, they're nuttier than you can possibly imagine." But if they're threatening lawsuits you can't be too careful.

  337. Tali says:

    Yeah, I've stayed away from them for that very reason.

    And even though I know impotent has two meanings, every time she accused someone of being impotent, I couldn't help but think "wow, accusing them of being infertile because they disagree with you…that's real mature"

  338. Foster says:

    makes you wonder what if some further back there family tree would have been impotent

  339. Thorne says:

    "Defending my family's honor"…???

    Seriously, I imagine all the bluster they could collectively muster would only be as effective as when Chief Wiggum said "No, no… dig UP, stupid."

  340. W Ross says:

    https://twitter.com/#!/moniguzman

    A second pro-Carreon article writer now considering a rewrite. You can't spin the truth in the digital age.

  341. Gal says:

    Based on her tweets it seems Monica Guzman genuinely believes that there's some danger of Carreon's lawsuit coming to something, and didn't really understand Inman's gesture in the first place.

  342. Smorz says:

    New loyal reader here, brought in by this ongoing story.

    I have a "what if" scenario I'd like to throw out there and hear what the more knowledgeable people here have to say about it.

    Obviously, Carreon's motives and the way he's gone about EVERYTHING in this matter deserves to get smacked (SLAPPED) down hard, dismissed, long before this ever reaches the jury trial he's demanding.

    My thoughts are these:
    He donated just for standing to sue. He is but 1 of 14,000+ donators to the charity drive. By suing "pro se" could he be opening himself up to a counter suit (or class action suit) from the 14,000+ other donators to the cause? The donation drive ends tonight. I assume his lawsuit will put any payout on hold until his case is decided one way or another which could drag out for awhile. I believe the first hearing is scheduled for September? What can the masses of other donors do to see that the payments go out as THEY see fit? What if the 14,000+ other donors are HAPPY to see Inman add the new charities and don't feel their donation is being wrongfully redirected.

    These are questions I've not seen pop up anywhere yet, but should be answered. Carreon is overreaching on so many levels, at the expense of so many people who probably trust and will agree with Inman to do the right thing whatever he decides, so long as it all goes to charity.

    Due to donations being by credit card only and my lack of, I didn't donate, but I might be one who would want to pursue some of this if I did.

  343. AlphaCentauri says:

    That's the problem in the blogosphere, isn't it? Everyone wants to be a writer; no one wants to read. It's not like it would have required a lot of research to find all sides of the story spelled out in detail.

    I heard about a publisher that won't consider a submitted manuscript unless the author can name one book he/she has purchased recently.

  344. Noah Callaway says:

    @Roxy
    I agree with all of your points! Again, I'm very firmly in the "Oatmeal supporter" camp when it comes to this whole…debacle. The original letter was wrong from a moral point of view, and (in this specific instance) from a PR point of view.

    The subsequent Carreon rampange is…well…entertaining for those of us not yet caught in the crossfire.

    That said, I have nuanced views about the original debate about how to effectively police UGC. I certainly think The Oatmeal was not wrong to write a post musing his actions, or to complain about his material on FunnyJunk. However, many people in these comments were saying FJ should "just" block his work. I wanted to point out how that trivialized a huge amount of work.

  345. Noah Callaway says:

    @Ann Bransom

    There is a huge span of content management options in terms of cost, time, and effort between code hacking to prevent certain keywords from being used and the video fingerprinting techonologies utilized by YouTube or technologies employed by iStockPhoto or Flickr.

    While I agree that there are options available (and I outlined some in my original post), I think some of the options are very bad and some of them are huge amounts of work. When I say "huge amounts of work", I don't mean 1 person is working 80+ hour weeks. I mean Google is still trying (and failing) to solve this problem for YouTube.

    Frankly, every automated system will generate false-positives. Each false positive could mean a lost-user (because you accidentally censored his oatmeal comic which was about Quaker Oats), or manual work (to look into and resolve a complaint).

    Unfortunately, the simpler the automated content-recognition system (i.e. "I won't let anyone post titles with Oatmeal!") the more false positives are generated, and the easier they are to circumvent:

    I'll title this post… "The MealOat!" Bwahahahaha!

    Or get out of the content aggregation business.

    This is where I disagree. Yes, they should be putting effort into stopping infringing UGC. I think how much work is a fair debate to have. However, to say they shouldn't be content aggregators because this isn't a solved problem is to say that YouTube shouldn't have existed; that craigslist shouldn't have existed; that vimeo shouldn't have existed. All of these companies received significant complaints at their outset that they didn't do enough to police UGC.

    I'm not saying FJ rises to the level of innovation offered by those other companies, but I want to caution painting with this "shut it down if it can't police content" brush. It often paints things that people don't think are innovative and awesome until much later.

    There is a difference between being guilty and being responsible.

    I agree. FJ may or may not have committed any copyright infringement (probably depending on how the DMCA-agent argument works out). I think they have a moral responsibility to police UGC to some amount; I think the debate in terms of moral responsibility is a huge grey area and was being overlooked.

  346. Noah Callaway says:

    @Ken

    Hi Ken! Your blog is totally awesome-sauce! I came here watching the Carreon-v-Internet trainwreck, and am totally hooked.

    I don't doubt that it is resource-intensive. So imagine how hard it is for authors and artists to police such sites for their work being ripped off.

    I agree. It's a sticky problem. There are thousands (millions?) more users than there are policemen. I don't think we can shutter the UGC content-aggregation business model because of this though. It's given us many important and useful tools on the internets (Youtube, Vimeo, craigslist).

    I'm sure there are some bad-actors in the content-aggregation world (FJ may be one, I really don't know enough about it. I still haven't been to their site after all this). If we trivialize the work required for the bad-actors to police their websites, it's going to have huge knock-on effects into the good-actors of the content-aggregation world.

    Like I said, it's a sticky problem. I don't have the answers, but I think there's a good debate about it in here that was being skipped over with the non-solution of: FJ should "simply" remove all of The Oatmeal's comics.

    Also, it seems as if FunnyJunk (like other sites) is structured with the intent of inviting such stolen content. Could it exist without it?

    I think this is a very reasonable question. The only thing that makes me squeamish about the question is it's the same one that was leveled by the [RI|MP]AA at YouTube and Vimeo. It's the question that gets asked about most UGC platforms in their inception.

    I don't know whether FunnyJunk could survive without infringing content. I do know other sites with similar business models (hosting user uploaded funny images) exist without a huge problem of infringing material (so far as I know). See http://www.quickmeme.com for one example.

    Again, in it's execution maybe FJ needed the infringing material. I'm just trying to temper the UGC portion of the debate, because I don't think the business model needs infringing material. At the same time there will always be infringing material on every website that hosts UGC content… What's the solution?

  347. Valerie says:

    I wouldn't worry about news articles that seem to spin the story in Carreon's favor. As long as it isn't libel, there's no law against spin (and God help cable news if their was). Carreon has a right to say his piece (ironically a right he'd deny to Inman et al).

    I'm all for pointing out factual errors to the reporters of inaccurate stories, but in practical terms, what matters most is the judge. He is this guy and he seems to have his oars in the water and a history working for the ACLU (not an organization that takes kindly to squashing free speech). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_M._Chen

    As for the daughters, they were raised by Charles and Tara. Naturally, they love their parents and its got to be hard when the internet points out your parents crazy and general asshattery, especially when you've been brought up to think the world is against you and your dad wears a white hat. Pity them and let them be.

  348. Foster says:

    @Noah Funny junk existed in a much better state long ago where the site was green and a lot of the content was user made and posted (most of this content oddly is now missing) not rips form other sited it was much more enjoyable back then and was policed I saw may infringing items removed quickly and there weren't many then and the site seemed to thrive then the ads came and well you may or may not have seen the results. so they in theory could have continued without infringing on content but it seems that the traffic from such content was to alluring .

  349. Tomas - University Place, WA says:

    @Smorz

    I would hate to see Matt Inman split the total collections to more than the original two charities, because at least a good portion of those 14,000+ who donated did so with the understanding that they were donating to those two charities and doing ANYTHING else with the money, no matter how nice, breaks the original promise/contract with those who donated with that understanding, and actually gives the Carrreon Eaters some real traction by that breach.

    I sincerely hope that Matt's lawyers have strongly cautioned him not to make any changes to what he initially said he would do with the money.

    Beyond that, I believe I'd truly enjoy a good solid suit against the litigious twatwaffle for his attempt to divert or delay the giving of the monies to charity.

    As always, IANAL,
    Tom

  350. AlphaCentauri says:

    Worrying about how to find infringing content assumes it's in Inman's best interest not to have it mirrored anywhere. Since his site makes money with reprints instead of ads, the best way to have settled it would have been for FJ to make sure that all of Inman's content linked to the originals and included mention that reprints were for sale. Inman might even have created an affiliate program to reward those who uploaded his content and brought traffic to his site. It could all have been win-win.

    As things were, it was two young web entrepreneurs lobbing puerile insults — until the lawyer got involved and spoiled everything. The feud probably helped everyone's traffic and didn't cost anyone any money.

  351. flip says:

    @Noah Callaway and @Ann

    I think there's also something missing from this equation of copyright policing vs. getting out of content aggregation. And that is the users. The biggest problem I've seen from people plagiarising is that the ones who are doing it are ignorant of copyright, can't see why it's important, don't care that it's illegal, don't understand that it takes real money from real people, and continue doing it even after being told it's wrong. The fact of the matter is that content aggregators make it easier to share stolen content; but these people might just do it anyway on their own forums/blogs/whatever if those aggregators didn't exist. The issue goes deeper than the people who are in charge of policing. It is about the need to educate the public more about what copyright is, why it's useful, and why it should be respected.

    As someone who has had to waste time reporting infringment on my own works on the net, I can attest to the difficulty of tracking down anything and then having it removed. It wastes my time: but I also understand that staff on website payroll do not have an infinite archive or knowledge of every created work in existence. It's just as bad on their end to track down infringements, especially when they can't ask for documentation every time someone uploads something.

    In this case I can't blame FJ for not picking it up immediately: but once notified they certainly acted the douche by changing titles and searches instead of just hunting out the stuff and deleting it and reprimanding users for further uploads.

    @AlphaCentauri

    There is a blurry area where sharing content helps raise your profile and encourages people to buy from you. Yes, it's good marketing. However, plagiarised content can also damage your profile (ie. FunnyJunk users now avoid The Oatmeal at all costs due to the suit) plus takes away your ability to raise money from advertising as the ads are on someone else's site. A link-back or credit is usually great; but some artists don't actually want their stuff to be shared in this way at all. Some prefer it if the image is not stolen and re-hosted, but instead people are encouraged to link directly to the artist's website. The problem in all this is that people think re-hosting attributed stuff is ok: but it's not. It's entirely up to the person's policy on how much of their copyright to enforce. This is why Creative Commons has a series of different licences to chose from. The best policy in all things is if you want to share something, either link directly to it from the person's website; or get permission for hosting it (unless otherwise clearly specified by the person on their site).

    In general you're right a compromise can be made. But as I point out above, the lack of education and the complexity of the law makes users think giving attribution is all that's needed to have permission. And that's not how it works of course.

    For many artists who share photos (or anything else) on the net, that aren't comic creators, it's actually not in their best interest to have them shared elsewhere. In a lot of cases these are photos from their portfolios, that then get re-used on other sites with no permission or attribution – or are incorrectly attributed. This is one of the reasons why getting users to understand what copyrights are about is important. The whole thing is far too complicated to simply announce that any re-use is good publicity.

    IANAL, but I've done a lot of research on copyright issues for artists.

  352. tara's n-bomb was merely another john[&yoko] reference. not that attribution is her specialty, or anything.

  353. Valerie says:

    @ alphacenturi I think you are mostly right, although I'd point out that, puerile or not, Inman didn't bring in a lawyer – funnyjunk did. Not sure how involved they were in the decision to send the letter, but the onus is on them for involving Mr. Carreon (I am guessing they did not vet him very much).

    It also will cost Inman time, energy, and stress to deal with this, so while he might get more traffic in the short term, he is paying a price.

  354. AlphaCentauri says:

    @Valerie, yes, we agree, once a lawyer became involved it changed things entirely. I suspect FJ was approached by CC and was told that he could write one letter and they'd be able to split $20K. It's possible one or both parties to the email exchange wasn't completely sober at the time.

  355. T. J. Brumfield says:

    Funny Junk filed under Spork You, LLC in Baton Rogue, LA in 2003.

    They've filed a corporation in Deleware called "The Company Corporation" in Deleware through CSC Corporation Service Company, who specifically provides a service of setting up Deleware corporations for people out of state.

    They list funnyjunkw@yahoo.com as the email address, which is tied to Bryan Durel, who also filed for Funny Junk, LLC.

    He filed Funny Junk, LLC in 2011 in Nevada, listing an address in New York City. Both the LA and NY addresses are rented mailboxes in UPS Stores. The phone number listed is the fax for the UPS Store.

    9618 Jefferson Hwy #375
    city/state : Baton Rouge LA
    country/zip : US 70809
    email : funnyjunkw@yahoo.com
    phone : +1 225 289 2834

    Bryan Durel is an Information Security Consultant and a DBA. I suspect he knows to search his site for content. The fact that he changed the search results on copyrighted content.

    9618 Jefferson Hwy #375
    city/state : Baton Rouge LA
    country/zip : US 70809
    email : funnyjunkw@yahoo.com
    phone : +1 225 289 2834

    This just opened up a huge rabbit hole of finding content and information. I'm now finding personal profiles of his and a bunch more. Please allow me to be very clear. I hope Bryan Durel sees his day in court for breaking the law. I do not in any way advocate harassing him.

    I'm simply pointing out that information accessible by a simple Google search is accessible by a simple Google search. Durel has gone out of his way to keep his name private in this matter, perhaps because he knows he is willingly breaking copyright law and directly profiting from it. But he can't completely hide that.

  356. Valerie says:

    Oh Jesus Christ! Satire. Is. Legal.

    "And now there are two false Charles Carreon websites. And we're going to have to sue them all. There are a lot of people just dying to be sued on this one. If you don't have a lawyer in the family, I would recommend you start getting concerned about this now. For yourself, friends, loved-ones, and fellow-citizens. This is a lynching on the Internet frontier."*

    Luckily, unlike the actual frontier, internet lynching does not involve extrajudicial hanging & torture. Having compared themselves to murdered jews in Nazi Germany, apparently the Carreons are now also just like the 3,446 blacks and 1,297 whites who were lynched between 1882 and 1968. Yes – being signed up for porn sites and having tons of pizzas delivered sucks, but it is not the equivalent of being gassed, whipped, burned alive, or hung from a tree.

    Nobody deserves to have ANY of these things happen to them & I don't suggest that anyone torment the Carreons in childish, counterproductive ways, but I'll be damned if I'm going to accept that these actions are in any way equivalent.

    Highlighting their hypocritical BS on as many internet forums as possible, however, is both legal and legitimate, and, if you ask me, fucking patriotic.

    What makes me (and I think many others) very, very angry is the fact that this guy is simultaneously trying to subvert free speech and make as many people as possible suffer out of simple butthurt & ego.

    I am a social studies teacher who worked for 4 years in the poorest district in my state (massive budget cuts = laid off, hence past tense). So many of my students considered our legal system an arbitrary joke where powerful people (like someone with a license to practice law) can win just by inconveniencing others without the time or money to fight criminal or civil charges.

    Time and again, I've cajoled them not to lose heart and faith in "the system." Crap like this makes it a lot harder to make that case. Inman is lucky that he #1 has the money to hire a competent lawyer & #2 has a platform to rally support & attract groups like the EFF.

    I'm not an anonymous critic. My name is Valerie O'Gilain and I live in New Hampshire. I taught at Stratford Public School before they were forced to get rid of the high school. Sue away if I've "lynched" you by pointing out the obvious.

    *http://www.naderlibrary.com/bulletin_board/viewtopic.php?t=896&start=40 – Unlike Funnyjunk's users, I always cite my sources.

  357. Jonathan says:

    http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/06/charles-carreon-just-wont-give-up/

    What the hell is this? Doesn't he know when to give up. Now he wants HALF the money that was originally intended to go to charity. He has no moral high ground at all. I hope this gets laughed out of court because if it doesn't I will have lost all faith in the legal system.

  358. V says:

    @Jonathan
    The arstechnica article got it wrong. The amended complaint says he wants the two charities to get 50% each.

    6.
    Disbursing fifty-percent (50%) of the Charitable Fund to the National Wildlife
    Foundation;
    7.
    Disbursing fifty-percent (50%) of the Charitable Fund to the American Cancer
    Society;

  359. Megan says:

    I feel the need to add my two cents to this feed. First, dolphins are cute, and very smart, but they rape people, all the time. I'm not making that up I've done my research. So I guess I'm perpetuating the stereotype of us Cannibal Kids hating dolphins. Also, I'm all for immature antics thrown the way of people who deserve them. That being said, anyone who has a few bucks laying around and knows the Carreons' address, or where to find it, should check out the website http://www.poopsenders.com Its totally legal, completely anonymous (Not even a "well-connected" lawyer could track it down), and I believe that their reaction and sure-to-follow press release would just be incredibly awesome. Just throwing that out there;) Normally, I don't judge people that I don't know or have never talked to. But since I have emailed Carreon and received replies from him confirming that he is, indeed, utterly ludicrous and childish in his words and behavior, I think it is acceptable. Like there wasn't already enough evience on the internet that displays just how awful of a person he is. I sincerely hope that lots of poopm comes his way, because he sure as hell deserves it. Good day all:)

  1. June 21, 2012

    [...] Also to those who oppose me in the comments of these (or any) posts, Tara is already drawing dicks on your avatars. [...]

  2. June 21, 2012

    [...] at the popehat.com they claim that I may have broken attorney client privilege. I ask you Ken, how are they going to do anything about it buddy? I am their lawyer and I [...]

  3. June 21, 2012

    [...] of stolen comics on his site. Will this stop that crazy lawsuit again the charities and IndieGoGo? PopehatCourtney Enlow rates some of the saddest deaths in the history of film. Needs more Dancer in the [...]

  4. June 23, 2012

    [...] join my Class Action Suit, or find me someone to work with. Why do you think I filed a lawsuit out of the state I live? SO I COULD GET AWAY. I mean that's why I tried to represent a Nevada LLC who's owner [...]

  5. June 25, 2012
  6. June 26, 2012

    [...] Part 6: The EFF Steps In [...]

  7. June 26, 2012

    [...] I get my $200,000 without such a hassle? I have been vilified by the gestapo press and the Cannibal Kids out there. I have had this Ann lady call me a clothespin eater. I've had my peers shoot down [...]