
The Oatmeal Fights Legal Threat, Raises $20,000 in an Hour - Liu
http://mashable.com/2012/06/11/the-oatmeal-funnyjunk/
======
aresant
Matt Iman (guy behind TheOatmeal), was co-founder & original CTO of SEOMoz and
left after his side project (Mingle2) blew up in popularity and was acquired.

He mentions in his departing SEOMoz blog post that the company that acquired
Mingle2 wanted "to leverage my viral marketing and linkbait abilities" - back
in 2007.

Fun to look at this through understanding that he's a SEO guru and viral-
marketing genius.

Perfect David vs. Goliath headline, tons raised for charity so he comes out
looking flawless, 3220 new inbound links for theoatmeal, etc.

Wow.

via <http://www.seomoz.org/blog/my-departure-from-seomoz>

[https://www.google.com/search?sugexp=chrome,mod=15&sourc...](https://www.google.com/search?sugexp=chrome,mod=15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=theoatmeal+#q=theoatmeal&hl=en&safe=off&tbo=1&output=search&source=lnt&tbs=qdr:d&sa=X&ei=babWT7neCIOw2wWMmcy0Dw&ved=0CAUQpwUoAg&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=c302becae0d93110&biw=1163&bih=593)

~~~
chris_wot
I'm not sure I'm seeing any issue here. OK, so he was good at SEO. The fact is
that he has always been very happy to have his comics republished, so long as
they link back to the original site. Can't be fairer than that.

Funnyjunk didn't do that. However, he didn't take legal action. He wrote a
blog, and exercized his right to free expression. Nothing about the blog was
factually incorrect. The links are dead because the images have been taken
down.

To be honest, he _does_ come out looking flawless! If someone can point out
what he's done wrong, I'm very curious. Certainly the letter he recieved from
the lawyer is absurd... Starting from the top:

1\. "FunnyJunk, LLC. ("FunnyJunk"), a competitor of TheOatmeal.com in the
field of online humor". Where can you go with this? TheOatmeal isn't competing
with them.

2\. He took an old blog post from last year, then stated that the screenshot
was "taken long ago". As is pointed out in the annotated letter, this means
nothing.

3\. Google cache shows that they had hundreds of images, many of them with the
attribution removed.

... more points, but is it necessary?

~~~
ktizo
Funnyjunk appears to be a comedy site with no sense of humour. Next thing you
know someone might start a rolling TV news channel with no knowledge of
current affairs, named after some kind of wild dog, and then where would we
be? Although, to be fair, that could never happen, as nobody would be stupid
enough to watch it.

~~~
tylerritchie
To be pedantic, it is not named for a wild dog. Wild dogs would be of the
_Canis_ genus, specifically _C. lupus_.

~~~
batista
I got the impression he meant CNN? Pronouncing CNN as C(a)n(i)n(e)?

------
nostromo
Having a rival is pure press (and SEO) mastery. Seriously.

It reminds me of the genius rap rivalries of the 90s and 00s which left both
rivals better off in every way (press, album sales, fame).
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hip_hop_rivalry>

~~~
wickedchicken
> which left both rivals better off in every way

yeah, tupac is rolling in money right now

~~~
mikerice
his estate is

~~~
beedogs
sorta beside the point. the whole "being dead" part sort of precludes him from
spending any of that rap beef money.

~~~
davidw
> One is reminded of what Big Mama Thornton once said about Elvis Presley. Big
> Mama had created the song "Hound Dog" and earned $50, but Elvis got the hit
> and countless millions. Asked how she felt about that, Big Mama replied,
> "Honey, I'm still here to spend my fifty dollars!"

------
ChuckMcM
I wonder if you can complain to the bar. Seems like a number of lawyers have
taken up the "shakedown" model and been penalized for it. You should be able
to complain to. The bar that this lawyer reflects badly on the profession for
not doing his research.

~~~
drostie
One thing which I remember seeing once was that Lawyer A had emailed site B
with some threat of a lawsuit, and B's lawyer immediately filed in court for a
declaration that A's threat was frivolous and harrassing, so that B should get
some sort of automatic damages if A ever sends another communication on the
same topic again.

I wasn't sure what legal principles were involved, or whether that declaration
was granted, but the whole idea was pretty kickass; "this is so obviously
something which you can't sue me for that I'm going to have a court shove that
fact up your rear end."

------
dangrossman
Mirror of The Oatmeal's post (annotated letter from the lawyer), since the
site is down or slow right now:

[http://rorr.im/reddit.com/r/funny/comments/uwp0d/8d937aaedad...](http://rorr.im/reddit.com/r/funny/comments/uwp0d/8d937aaedad38e133310e4672a0c4291.html)

------
jontas
I'd love to take that $20-40k and put it towards a company that does nothing
but monitor websites like Funny Junk and issue takedown notices on the behalf
of the content owners.

Companies like this probably exist, but I'm sure they don't come cheap and are
used primarily by the big players (eg music labels, movie studios).

I think it is great that Matt is donating the money to charity. However, the
idea of putting the money towards some kind of community focused content
monitor struck me as an interesting alternative.

I also wonder to what degree something like this could be automated. I know
sites like YouTube monitor their own content, but what if Matt could upload
all his images, verify his ownership in a legally meaningful way, and then
automatically monitor Funny Junk and issue takedown notices in real time.

~~~
snowwrestler
Consider the offsetting financial incentives here.

Sites like FunnyJunk can be created by a small team, allow the upload of a ton
of copyrighted content by users, and then run ads next to copyrighted content.
Boom, instant money, and if they do well, maybe an acquisition (see: YouTube).
All they have to do is keep up with DMCA takedowns, which are few and far
between from small content producers like The Oatmeal.

Meanwhile, if you want to build a company to automate content protection, you
have to go find deep-pocketed content creators from day one. I don't know of
any way to run ads against the _creation_ of DMCA takedowns.

So the financial incentives are totally asymmetric. It's way easier and more
lucrative to create a platform for infringing content, than for protecting it.
Until that changes, small creators like The Oatmeal will get victimized.

~~~
makomk
If this changes small creators like The Oatmeal won't stand a chance. He
bootstrapped the success of his website in large part through Reddit, which is
of course a commercial site based around user-submitted content that allows
and profits from a ton of copyright infringement. Stopping people from
infringing your copyright is no good if no-one ever finds out about your
content.

Obviously this doesn't matter to The Oatmeal anymore - everyone's heard of The
Oatmeal by now, and preventing competitors from becoming well-known is
probably good for profits - but it's not great for the internet in general.
Probably wouldn't be good for YCombinator either.

~~~
snowwrestler
I don't think you've thought this through.

The difference between Reddit and FunnyJunk is that FunnyJunk actually hosts
the image files on the FunnyJunk server, keeping visitors there.

Reddit does not host anything but text--when you post an "image" to Reddit,
you're really just posting a link. This drives the traffic to The Oatmeal (or
whoever), who can then monetize it.

Reddit is an example of a web startup doing it right. They drive tons of
traffic around the web. Techmeme is another, and so is Hacker News.

------
paulgb
For a guy with 90s clip-art on his letterhead, he's had more experience than I
expected <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Carreon>

~~~
officemonkey
Having 90s clip-art on your letterhead means you've been at it since the 90s.
:-D

------
pasbesoin
The legal herd definitely is in need of thinning. (I mean, career changes, of
course -- to flipping Kodiak burgers.)

I'm glad parody and appropriately sharp (in more than one way) commentary have
not been wiped off the Internet, yet. Hopefully, not ever.

------
TomGullen
Is there any chance that FunnyJunk has played the Oatmeal for promotional
purposes here?

~~~
calciphus
There's always a chance, but if so they're very poor marketers. This is the
modern world - there IS such a thing as bad publicity. They just got a
mountain of it, and The Oatmeal came out smelling like roses.

And raised what, $40k for charity in a few hours?

~~~
dag11
No. $50k.

AND RISING.

~~~
Kluny
$60k :D

------
Shengster
Ironically The Oatmeal is down. Presumably because so many people want to give
him money that they've DDOSed his website.

------
cpunks
My guess is FJ and Oatmeal are both getting massive traffic thanks to this
little battle.

------
woodall
Pot meet kettle

<http://theoatmeal.com/comics/game_of_thrones>

~~~
guice
Looking for legal options ... getting duped by iTunes descriptions ... forced
to look for pirate options.

Hosting somebody else's images without arbitration. Then fall to name-calling
when the owner asks for them to be taken down.

I fail to see the connection here. Care to explain?

~~~
woodall
Theft is theft is theft.

------
beedogs
They can't be serious with this legal "threat". They don't have a leg to stand
on.

~~~
Tyrannosaurs
The guy is a lawyer and seems to think that they do.

If you read his letter it's very specific, he's not saying that the material
isn't there, he's taking issue with the suggestion that funnyjunk is willfully
violating the Oatmeal's copyright (as opposed to just not responding fast
enough in pulling it down). That's the complaint - the suggestion that it's
intentional.

Just because you've been wronged, it doesn't give you carte blanc to say what
you want about the person doing it. You're safest sticking to the absolute
barest facts with no editorialising or commentary.

I have no problem in seeing that there might be a valid case here. I don't
like it and it sucks, but in the eyes of the law there might be something.

(Obviously all this ignores the possibility that he's just rattling the cage
and seeing if there's $20,000 of easy money there based on Inman running
scared. It might be significant that neither the requests being made in terms
of removing the material nor the amount (compared to potential legal fees in
fighting the case) are that onerous).

------
jsprinkles
FunnyJunk is apparently responding quietly on their site, as just searching
for the word 'oatmeal' results in no search results (that wasn't the case when
this blog post went up). According to people I know that use the site, you
cannot add comments with the word 'oatmeal', either. They also deleted every
single linked image he exhaustively listed.

I have a hard time resolving litigation like this with the fact that the truth
can change in minutes, as Web sites are fairly easy to edit. It's just scary.

~~~
jjcm
How does this bode in the terms of destroying evidence? Is there any legal
ramifications of doing this after you've engaged in legal action?

~~~
dangrossman
The alleged libel is based, in part, upon Funnyjunk's claim that they are
acting legally within the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA by only hosting
UGC and taking it down upon notice of infringement.

The Oatmeal's response to the claim included a list of content infringing his
copyright. Funnyjunk is going to want to remove that content to retain its
safe harbor from liability for the infringement. It may or may not be a
properly worded notice under the DMCA, but a lot of notices UGC hosts get
aren't, and they still take down the content -- because the intent of the
parties and whether they acted in good faith matters when it's time to face a
judge.

That the pages are no longer accessible does not mean the evidence has been
destroyed, either. The DMCA requires only that you "block access to" the
content, not physically remove it from a server.

------
planetguy
Y'see, this is why The Oatmeal guy is a comic genius. He understands that
while

 _"drawing of your mom seducing a bear"_

is funny,

 _"drawing of your mom seducing a kodiak bear"_

is hilarious.

~~~
pi18n
He's not a comic genius, he's a marketing genius. His comics are actually
quite banal; everyone hates their printers, a list of reasons why makes us
feel good but isn't actually funny.

~~~
SonicSoul
um. i guess you have not read "Why Captain Higgins is my favorite parasitic
worm"

<http://theoatmeal.com/comics/captain_higgins>

Still think its banal and not funny? does everyone hate parasites that can
turn ants into zombies?

~~~
ascendant
I'm sure 15 year old girls talk about zombie-creating parasites all the time.
_Everyone_ is bored of it ;)

~~~
gbog
The zombie thing is very cultural and limited in time, it may not be funny
after the fashion is gone.

------
sparknlaunch
While this is a great story likely to go down in Internet history, it seems a
risky strategy. Sure he raised $20k but seems like this will just fuel the
fire of the FunnyJunk lawyers. There have been more trivial legal cases than
this one - that could go on for a long time.

~~~
crikli
The total is now $57K with 15 days left. Matthew is in the position of being
able to use the internet as a money spigot if FunnyJunk really wants to
escalate.

~~~
pavel_lishin
That kind of money isn't consistent, though - raising that much money from one
case where people clearly want to side with him, even if he _wasn't_ donating
the money to two charities, is much easier than doing it every week to pay off
legal expenses.

~~~
trustfundbaby
I don't you have an understanding of how deep his fanbase is ... he raised
that money in one day ... seriously think about that for a second.

------
KenCochrane
I'm surprised that people haven't started contacting funnyjunk and telling
them how much of a tool they are.

Here are some good links, if you are want to do more.

<http://www.funnyjunk.com/contact/>

<http://www.funnyjunk.com/abuse/>

<http://www.funnyjunk.com/copyright/>

~~~
RobAtticus
Why prolong the conflict? The Oatmeal wants to move past all this. Emailing FJ
is just going to cause them to be agitated and therefore continue to pursue
their action, prolonging the headache. It might even be counterproductive if
they can use the mass of emails as "proof" that their reputation has been
damaged.

Let's not take a funny/clever retort by TheOatmeal and ruin it by being
jackasses.

------
ruswick
Although the lawsuit is bullshit, I would probably be really happy if the
oatmeal were to get sued out of existence.

I try to stay away from it as much as possible, but of the handful of things
I've seen there, they were all trollish and entirely incorrect.

The site is just more Internet scum and it going away would probably be for
the best.

~~~
hobin
Unresolved anger issues much? Hint: the internet is big. If you don't like
something, ignore it.

~~~
sk5t
A Thomas Edison fan enraged? Maybe this is how it manifests?

