More Unfunny Junk(arstechnica.com)
arstechnica.com
More Unfunny Junk
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/06/funnyjunks-lawyer-personally-sues-the-oatmeal-creator/
88 comments
Also being sued at the moment. I'm in the UK.
It's only pre-action at the moment, so there's a chance to still avoid full on action.
I'm well aware of how real and serious this is though. That it could bankrupt me if only the slightest thing goes wrong (for me).
This is when being a bootstrapped sole founder is no fun... there is no safety net, nothing to catch you. I can't even afford representation, so I'm representing myself (nightmare!). I'm spending more time reading and researching rather than coding.
What I've learned most of all, is that right and wrong don't really matter.
If it's going to go to court, if it involves a jury (the action I'm involved in definitely would)... then all bets are off.
And all the while life goes on hold and projects are put on pause.
From the outside everyone has their views and express them frequently. This is all detached and partisan though, the reality is that it really can bankrupt you, or takeaway your future, or drain your current assets and reserves. It demands being treated with respect even if you believe your position is sound and the case unfounded.
The hardest bit, as you rightly say, is the gut wrenching fear and stress. The way it affects your sleep. The way it's hard to work or relax because your thoughts are always on the legal action. It affects everything.
It's only pre-action at the moment, so there's a chance to still avoid full on action.
I'm well aware of how real and serious this is though. That it could bankrupt me if only the slightest thing goes wrong (for me).
This is when being a bootstrapped sole founder is no fun... there is no safety net, nothing to catch you. I can't even afford representation, so I'm representing myself (nightmare!). I'm spending more time reading and researching rather than coding.
What I've learned most of all, is that right and wrong don't really matter.
If it's going to go to court, if it involves a jury (the action I'm involved in definitely would)... then all bets are off.
And all the while life goes on hold and projects are put on pause.
From the outside everyone has their views and express them frequently. This is all detached and partisan though, the reality is that it really can bankrupt you, or takeaway your future, or drain your current assets and reserves. It demands being treated with respect even if you believe your position is sound and the case unfounded.
The hardest bit, as you rightly say, is the gut wrenching fear and stress. The way it affects your sleep. The way it's hard to work or relax because your thoughts are always on the legal action. It affects everything.
That sucks beyond belief. You often hear of litigation cases in the States but rarely hear UK cases being publicised.
You should come to the Hacker News London meet-up and let me buy you a pint or twelve.
You should come to the Hacker News London meet-up and let me buy you a pint or twelve.
You don't get a lawyer appointed when you can't afford one?
No.
Legal Aid is available for a very limited few (the most needy - which I actually would've met the criteria for being on a Ramen wage) and only in certain circumstances. The action against me includes a claim of defamation and this precludes Legal Aid.
Pro bono is available, but generally comes with many restrictions. Example: Must live within this catchment area, or be a woman victim of abuse, etc.
Where pro bono isn't restricted I've found that the lawyers are over-loaded and unable to take on any more. I've contacted a number of lawyers, and with the kindest apologies they've had to decline but then recommend someone else. The recommendations have formed a large circular loop, I've tried them all.
There are legal clinics. Attending a CAB (Citizens Advice Bureau) will generally see you referred to one. By and large these are operated by local small solicitor firms. Some legal clinics are much better funded and organised.
I attended SWLAC (South Westminster Legal Advice Clinic). Which is sole-funded by a barrister who wishes to remain anonymous. Largely these clinics deal with housing issues and fairly simplistic cases for the most vulnerable. So when I presented my case to them for advice (how to respond, interpreting the law and whether I'd got it right), they were quite challenged by it. For an hour on a Tuesday evening it's perhaps beyond their scope though they did their best.
Home insurance policies sometimes include Legal Defence cover. So I tried mine, which does have that cover. However I found that this cover is only available for a limited range of actions against you, and again does not cover anything that includes defamation.
The action against me purposefully conflates 2 things together... my role as the operator of a web site, and my role as a user of my own service. The claimant has attempted to argue that my use of my own service somehow removes the defences afforded to the operator of a site and would make me liable for the statements made by others on the site. The third party comments being the ones which are claimed to be defamatory.
There is more to it than this (but not much more), but as it may go to action I limit what I will say publicly.
Legal Aid is available for a very limited few (the most needy - which I actually would've met the criteria for being on a Ramen wage) and only in certain circumstances. The action against me includes a claim of defamation and this precludes Legal Aid.
Pro bono is available, but generally comes with many restrictions. Example: Must live within this catchment area, or be a woman victim of abuse, etc.
Where pro bono isn't restricted I've found that the lawyers are over-loaded and unable to take on any more. I've contacted a number of lawyers, and with the kindest apologies they've had to decline but then recommend someone else. The recommendations have formed a large circular loop, I've tried them all.
There are legal clinics. Attending a CAB (Citizens Advice Bureau) will generally see you referred to one. By and large these are operated by local small solicitor firms. Some legal clinics are much better funded and organised.
I attended SWLAC (South Westminster Legal Advice Clinic). Which is sole-funded by a barrister who wishes to remain anonymous. Largely these clinics deal with housing issues and fairly simplistic cases for the most vulnerable. So when I presented my case to them for advice (how to respond, interpreting the law and whether I'd got it right), they were quite challenged by it. For an hour on a Tuesday evening it's perhaps beyond their scope though they did their best.
Home insurance policies sometimes include Legal Defence cover. So I tried mine, which does have that cover. However I found that this cover is only available for a limited range of actions against you, and again does not cover anything that includes defamation.
The action against me purposefully conflates 2 things together... my role as the operator of a web site, and my role as a user of my own service. The claimant has attempted to argue that my use of my own service somehow removes the defences afforded to the operator of a site and would make me liable for the statements made by others on the site. The third party comments being the ones which are claimed to be defamatory.
There is more to it than this (but not much more), but as it may go to action I limit what I will say publicly.
That's a possibility for criminal trials only (in the US anyway).
I've seen a lot of comments online talk about how in the US people are very litigation-happy and the law enables it. Does your situation exist because you're located in the US or is your situation something that would happen anywhere in the world?
Most countries operate on a "loser pays" system. Whichever party loses has to pay the legal fees of the winning side.
This does a lot to discourage nuisance lawsuits.
In the US defendants generally can't recoup costs unless the claim is declared a "frivolous lawsuit".
This does a lot to discourage nuisance lawsuits.
In the US defendants generally can't recoup costs unless the claim is declared a "frivolous lawsuit".
I can't really say, because I lack sufficient knowledge of legal systems outside the US. I really only know what I know about our current system because of this lawsuit. I'd prefer not to know any of it! I just want to build great products.
Except for there is no law being broken here.
If drawing and distributing a picture of someone in a negative fashion were a punishable offense, every political cartoonist in America would have been put on the chopping block long ago.
If drawing and distributing a picture of someone in a negative fashion were a punishable offense, every political cartoonist in America would have been put on the chopping block long ago.
That's rather the poster's point: even if the claims are demonstrably false, it can be an enormous burden and risk to actually demonstrate that.
You nailed it.
"Except for there is no law being broken here."
Sounds very black & white, doesn't it? The thing is, it doesn't matter. The actual determination of whether or not you've broken the law occurs very late in civil proceedings. A judge doesn't rule on whether or not you've broken the law, a jury does. The judge can only rule that the claim made against you does or doesn't past certain "tests". I can assure you that if a lawyer digs deep enough, he will find some circumstance under which these tests will pass and you will end up sued.
"Except for there is no law being broken here."
Sounds very black & white, doesn't it? The thing is, it doesn't matter. The actual determination of whether or not you've broken the law occurs very late in civil proceedings. A judge doesn't rule on whether or not you've broken the law, a jury does. The judge can only rule that the claim made against you does or doesn't past certain "tests". I can assure you that if a lawyer digs deep enough, he will find some circumstance under which these tests will pass and you will end up sued.
Oddly enough, Carreon is not suing over the picture itself--he is not suing for libel (i.e., a published defamation) or intentional infliction of emotional distress. He is merely claiming that the picture is a motivating factor in suing the Oatmeal guy.
Of course, Carreon is representing himself in the matter, and we all know what they say about a lawyer who has himself for a client...
Of course, Carreon is representing himself in the matter, and we all know what they say about a lawyer who has himself for a client...
Actually, I've never heard the saying about a lawyer being his own client so I'm somewhat curious. Is it like a Jack Thompson (not sure I spelled the Thompson right) thing?
What a nightmare. How do small fries defend themselves? What happens if some loony decides to drag a very small business into a frivolous lawsuit? Sinking $100k into trying (and not even necessarily succeeding!) to defend against ridiculous claims is utterly outside of financial reality for many. But what's the alternative? Lose everything?
How do the little guys defend themselves against this garbage?
How do the little guys defend themselves against this garbage?
You get a lawyer.
If you're smart, you figure out how much legal help you can afford. There is some help available pro-bono, some through legal clinics.
It's helpful to figure out what you feel that you should do, and what you actually need to do. Getting the other side to spin its wheels can be helpful, though for a morally motivated pro se opponent, this can be challenging (by "morally motivated", I mean an opponent who's motivated by their own moral outrage, not necessarily acting morally), as they are essentially gifting themselves their own legal services. Being prepared can be helpful, but that can cost.
Often you don't need to do too much, sometimes that's not the case. And law can very much be a war of attrition.
There are some countermeasures which can be taken, generally launching a countersuit, making disclosure demands, etc., though these also have their own costs, and if your opponent doesn't have deep pockets, they're not particularly effective and/or interesting to your own legal counsel (who after all is looking for their billable hours or 30% contingency).
A very good rule of thumb is not to do business with assholes (or marry one), though this won't cover you in all cases (e.g.: Oatmeal vs. FunnyJunk).
There are also personal liability policies available, though they can be expensive. On the positive side, they make your problem your insurance company's problem, and they may be motivated to respond effectively to shut down your opponent. More often these or other legal insurance policies will cost a fair bit up-front and pay for a small fraction of legal costs.
If you're smart, you figure out how much legal help you can afford. There is some help available pro-bono, some through legal clinics.
It's helpful to figure out what you feel that you should do, and what you actually need to do. Getting the other side to spin its wheels can be helpful, though for a morally motivated pro se opponent, this can be challenging (by "morally motivated", I mean an opponent who's motivated by their own moral outrage, not necessarily acting morally), as they are essentially gifting themselves their own legal services. Being prepared can be helpful, but that can cost.
Often you don't need to do too much, sometimes that's not the case. And law can very much be a war of attrition.
There are some countermeasures which can be taken, generally launching a countersuit, making disclosure demands, etc., though these also have their own costs, and if your opponent doesn't have deep pockets, they're not particularly effective and/or interesting to your own legal counsel (who after all is looking for their billable hours or 30% contingency).
A very good rule of thumb is not to do business with assholes (or marry one), though this won't cover you in all cases (e.g.: Oatmeal vs. FunnyJunk).
There are also personal liability policies available, though they can be expensive. On the positive side, they make your problem your insurance company's problem, and they may be motivated to respond effectively to shut down your opponent. More often these or other legal insurance policies will cost a fair bit up-front and pay for a small fraction of legal costs.
If we weren't successful at our startup, I'm not sure how I'd pay to defend myself. The reality is that I probably would not have been able to, which would have resulted in a default judgement followed by bankruptcy.
I'm not from money. I'm the son of factory worker and a stay and home mom who cleaned houses to help pay the bills. This whole ordeal is utterly terrifying. I (along with my other partners) bootstrapped our company on money earned and saved by working our assess off. I personally contributed over $60,0000 to start our company, and that money came from nothing. I earned it fixing computers and working on our startup in-between customers and at night.
The thing that keeps me going is anger. That's the only emotion that trumps my fear. I'm outraged at the absurdity of the allegations levied against me.
I'm not from money. I'm the son of factory worker and a stay and home mom who cleaned houses to help pay the bills. This whole ordeal is utterly terrifying. I (along with my other partners) bootstrapped our company on money earned and saved by working our assess off. I personally contributed over $60,0000 to start our company, and that money came from nothing. I earned it fixing computers and working on our startup in-between customers and at night.
The thing that keeps me going is anger. That's the only emotion that trumps my fear. I'm outraged at the absurdity of the allegations levied against me.
One of the biggest misconceptions about the corporate form is that it fully shields investors, officers, or employees from liability for their actions. It does not.
Employees remain liable for their own actions, though the corporation may also be liable for its employees actions. (See "detour and frolic" doctrine.)
Officers can be held liable for their decisions in running the corporation. However, officers are usually indemnified (by the corporation) for lawsuits against them if they were properly acting in their capacity as officers.
Investors can be held personally liable for any of the corporation's liabilities if the corporation is "undercapitalized", i.e., it does not hold sufficient liquidable assets or insurance to cover its current predicted exposure to the sum of its liabilities. This usually describes most S-Corps and smaller C-Corps, especially solely-owned corporations.
Employees remain liable for their own actions, though the corporation may also be liable for its employees actions. (See "detour and frolic" doctrine.)
Officers can be held liable for their decisions in running the corporation. However, officers are usually indemnified (by the corporation) for lawsuits against them if they were properly acting in their capacity as officers.
Investors can be held personally liable for any of the corporation's liabilities if the corporation is "undercapitalized", i.e., it does not hold sufficient liquidable assets or insurance to cover its current predicted exposure to the sum of its liabilities. This usually describes most S-Corps and smaller C-Corps, especially solely-owned corporations.
In our case, the lawyer smoked up a "civil conspiracy" charge, which is a popular method of breaking through corporations. But yeah, same result, different plot.
The full PDF link of complaint is linked from here:
http://www.loweringthebar.net/2012/06/carreon-v-the-oatmeal....
Carreon did something quite interesting:
Carreon sues National Wildlife Federation and the American Cancer Society in order to give them all of the money collected in their name, preventing IndieGoGo to take 9% of the collected money and Inman to get any cent himself and to have a chance to decide how much to pay to which charity (claiming that Inman promised to pay only USD 20,000 to both). And of course to prevent him photographing with the collected money. :) Ground: the collection of the money over IndieGoGo wasn't done according to the law that regulates collection of charities.
Moreover, Carreon claims that he himself paid to the campaign(!) and wants to protect the charities and all contributors who assume that charities get everything that was paid.
Cool. It doesn't look like he didn't think about the suit.
http://www.loweringthebar.net/2012/06/carreon-v-the-oatmeal....
Carreon did something quite interesting:
Carreon sues National Wildlife Federation and the American Cancer Society in order to give them all of the money collected in their name, preventing IndieGoGo to take 9% of the collected money and Inman to get any cent himself and to have a chance to decide how much to pay to which charity (claiming that Inman promised to pay only USD 20,000 to both). And of course to prevent him photographing with the collected money. :) Ground: the collection of the money over IndieGoGo wasn't done according to the law that regulates collection of charities.
Moreover, Carreon claims that he himself paid to the campaign(!) and wants to protect the charities and all contributors who assume that charities get everything that was paid.
Cool. It doesn't look like he didn't think about the suit.
> "FunnyJunk is not suing him," Carreon added. "FunnyJunk didn't sue him. So what are people bitching about?"
Oh, I don't know, the $20,000 'offer' which is tantamount to extortion?
Oh, I don't know, the $20,000 'offer' which is tantamount to extortion?
[deleted]
> "That fact that [Inman] wants to react by advocating net war against me and accusing my mom of bestiality makes him lower than the low"
Reading the offending piece on theoatmeal.com it appears the mother mentioned is that of FunnyJunk owner rather than Carreon.
The leading text before the claimed offence:
>"You want ME to pay YOU $20,000 for hosting MY unlicensed comics on YOUR shitty website for the past 3 years?"
Considering the cheque was to be made payable to FunnyJunk (as requested in the letter), and as Carreon does not own the "shitty website" it unlikely the image depicts his mother at all but that of FunnyJunk's owner(s).
You could argue that the whole blog post is addressed to FunnyJunk, not Carreon.
Reading the offending piece on theoatmeal.com it appears the mother mentioned is that of FunnyJunk owner rather than Carreon.
The leading text before the claimed offence:
>"You want ME to pay YOU $20,000 for hosting MY unlicensed comics on YOUR shitty website for the past 3 years?"
Considering the cheque was to be made payable to FunnyJunk (as requested in the letter), and as Carreon does not own the "shitty website" it unlikely the image depicts his mother at all but that of FunnyJunk's owner(s).
You could argue that the whole blog post is addressed to FunnyJunk, not Carreon.
:s/it appears/it should be obvious to anyone/
:s/You could argue that//
:s/Carreon/Carrion/g
http://theoatmeal.com/blog/funnyjunk_letter
:s/You could argue that//
:s/Carreon/Carrion/g
http://theoatmeal.com/blog/funnyjunk_letter
Carrion as in carcass of a dead animal?
Being sued by a guy who was once suspended by the Californian State Bar [1] and who said that he "stands behind myself" [2]. Not sure I'd be overly concerned.
1. http://archive.calbar.ca.gov/%5CArchive.aspx?articleId=83602...
2. http://www.ramblingbeachcat.com/2012/06/not-backing-down-ram...
1. http://archive.calbar.ca.gov/%5CArchive.aspx?articleId=83602...
2. http://www.ramblingbeachcat.com/2012/06/not-backing-down-ram...
Just because he's an idiot and his case is baseless doesn't mean it won't be a pain in the ass to deal with.
[deleted](1)
I hope Matthew Inman won't be shy about asking for legal defense donations, because I don't think his fans would be shy about giving them. With any luck, a good lawyer, and a few years clogging up the legal system, this could be an expensive mistake for Carreon.
Boing Boing says he's getting pro bono counsel: http://boingboing.net/2012/06/18/funnyjunks-lawyer-sues-amer...
He's apparently suing the charities too. WTF. I'd like to hear him explain how the charities are responsible.
It appears that he wants to sue the charity because of the following logic:
1. Indiegogo is incorporated in California.
2. It appears that under Californian state law that to collect money for a charity you must register to do so.
3. The charities were informed of the fundraising efforts, and as no paperwork had been filed they have the authority to shutdown the fundraising efforts.
4. The charities have refused to do so, therefore for some reason they are liable for the campaign.
(Reasoning taken from here: http://www.ramblingbeachcat.com/2012/06/not-backing-down-ram...)
1. Indiegogo is incorporated in California.
2. It appears that under Californian state law that to collect money for a charity you must register to do so.
3. The charities were informed of the fundraising efforts, and as no paperwork had been filed they have the authority to shutdown the fundraising efforts.
4. The charities have refused to do so, therefore for some reason they are liable for the campaign.
(Reasoning taken from here: http://www.ramblingbeachcat.com/2012/06/not-backing-down-ram...)
There's a more detailed look at that aspect (all be it speculative until the filing is on Pacer) on Techdirt
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120618/00025519366/charle...
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120618/00025519366/charle...
"Carreon also hints that Inman might be responsible for someone setting up a fake Twitter account in his name which had some "offensive statements." His evidence that Inman was responsible? At the same time that the fake account tweeted some stuff, Inman posted a tweet mocking Carreon in somewhat offensive terms. That tweet did not link to or reference the fake account, but according to Carreon: "I don't know if that's coincidence. Why was he on twitter at the same time the impersonator was? I don't know.""
Ohhh man, that's gold.
Ohhh man, that's gold.
He's suing the charities along with Inman and IndiGoGo on his own behalf, not for FunnyJunk. He's acting as his own lawyer and demanding his legal fees be paid by the defendants. That's some amazing chutzpah.
[deleted]
"Mom! He hit me!"
But seriously, this guy is just trying to milk his 15 minutes.
It'll all be over soon. Nobody is going to end up doing anything, and the parties involved all get an increase in notoriety.
It's like a mutual troll, and the joke is on anyone who buys into this jersey shore type hype.
But seriously, this guy is just trying to milk his 15 minutes.
It'll all be over soon. Nobody is going to end up doing anything, and the parties involved all get an increase in notoriety.
It's like a mutual troll, and the joke is on anyone who buys into this jersey shore type hype.
Nobody is going to end up doing anything
Except that something has happened, as the lawyer has filed lawsuits.
Except that something has happened, as the lawyer has filed lawsuits.
Filing a lawsuit for a lawyer is a like us portscanning someone. It's not a big deal.
Unless you're the non-lawyer getting sued. Then you either need to put in time and effort responding to the lawsuit or money getting someone else to respond to it.
The idea that litigation is just something that happens is ridiculous. It's a time consuming, expensive and often very painful process for the accused, innocent or not.
The idea that litigation is just something that happens is ridiculous. It's a time consuming, expensive and often very painful process for the accused, innocent or not.
[deleted]
> But seriously, this guy is just trying to milk his 15 minutes.
he's being milked though, it's been a long time since I thought the term "lulzcow" applied to somebody and it applies fully to Carreon. Though it's not funny for Inman it's rather entertaining to see Carreon keep digging.
he's being milked though, it's been a long time since I thought the term "lulzcow" applied to somebody and it applies fully to Carreon. Though it's not funny for Inman it's rather entertaining to see Carreon keep digging.
This is probably the most accurate forecast. That said, The only people who are going to hire this guy after this fiasco are those who do not know about it.
I have been trying extremely hard to give Carreon the benefit of the doubt and understand his reasoning. I am beginning to wonder if he perhaps has a touch Asbergers syndrome, or something of the sorts.
In reading his remarks, he is obviously thoughtful, well read, and genuinely believes himself. But, there seems to be a stark contrast between what is going on in his head and the "real" world. Regardless, this is the online equivalent to trashy reality T.V. and I can not seem to tear my attention away.
In reading his remarks, he is obviously thoughtful, well read, and genuinely believes himself. But, there seems to be a stark contrast between what is going on in his head and the "real" world. Regardless, this is the online equivalent to trashy reality T.V. and I can not seem to tear my attention away.
I've met him on a few occasions. He's smart and generally the IP lawyer I've recommended to friends and associates. Kind of hard to do that now, but there you have it.
[edit: fixed typo]
[edit: fixed typo]
"They say a man who represents himself has a fool for a client and a jackass for a lawyer. With god as my witness — I AM that jackass!" -- Gomez Addams
Can't the Oatmeal guy counter sue for for libel? (He didn't get a horde of trolls to attack this guy, they are all acting on their own accord)
[deleted](1)
Nice headline Nate. Well played.
So it seems to me that FunnyJunk trolled the Oatmeal into a legal fight with a lawyer, with one threatening letter.
If there is a lesson in this, it is that some humility goes a long way. In his furious stupor with FunnyJunk he attacked their lawyer as well.
If there is a lesson in this, it is that some humility goes a long way. In his furious stupor with FunnyJunk he attacked their lawyer as well.
Nothing on him? He has stuff on them - namely, copyright infringement (which may or may not be covered by the DMCA safe harbor). And he didn't start a war with their lawyer, it was the other way around.
I think if he didn't draw the bear picture Carreon wouldn't have taken it personally. Right now this lawyer is representing himself on a rampage against the Oatmeal and charities.
Not so much against the charities - just the use of the charities as a shield for Inman's slander.
Inman has really screwed up. The personal attack against Carreon was an over reaction and largely unnecessary.
Inman has really screwed up. The personal attack against Carreon was an over reaction and largely unnecessary.
Personal attack?! What do you call threatening to sue a person for $20000? Any decent person, lawyer or not, should have refused to write such a letter.
Besides, nothing in Inman's blog post indicates the attack to be directed against Carreon, he just assumed it was. In fact, seeing as he uses phrases like "your website", it makes more sense to assume the attack is against FunnyJunk and/or its owners.
Besides, nothing in Inman's blog post indicates the attack to be directed against Carreon, he just assumed it was. In fact, seeing as he uses phrases like "your website", it makes more sense to assume the attack is against FunnyJunk and/or its owners.
Eh, it's only an overreaction if you have no sense of humor and don't consider how offensive and stressful it is to be shaken down for $20,000 the way Inman was.
Generally speaking, rational people control their reactions and act in appropriate ways. This is especially true in stressful situations.
An over reaction can be justified by stress, but it is not excused. And in this situation, Inman is going to be held accountable for his actions.
An over reaction can be justified by stress, but it is not excused. And in this situation, Inman is going to be held accountable for his actions.
> And in this situation, Inman is going to be held accountable for his actions.
I agree. I hope he gets what's coming to him for raising over $100k in charitable donations.
I agree. I hope he gets what's coming to him for raising over $100k in charitable donations.
Did Inman misrepresent any of Carreon's actions?
If not, then the lawyer has no one to blame for the harassment he has earned, other than the individual harassers themselves.
And if we're talking about rational, appropriate reactions: the right reaction for Carreon is to apologize for what he did. It's the first step in reconciliation and it's normal human behavior. Carreon apologizes and comes to an understanding with Inman, who tells everyone about it and the outrage cools off.
Carreon's reaction isn't rational, it's calculating and vengeful and probably greedy. The harassment is unfortunate and where illegal, it's appropriate to punish. But that's not what he's doing.
If not, then the lawyer has no one to blame for the harassment he has earned, other than the individual harassers themselves.
And if we're talking about rational, appropriate reactions: the right reaction for Carreon is to apologize for what he did. It's the first step in reconciliation and it's normal human behavior. Carreon apologizes and comes to an understanding with Inman, who tells everyone about it and the outrage cools off.
Carreon's reaction isn't rational, it's calculating and vengeful and probably greedy. The harassment is unfortunate and where illegal, it's appropriate to punish. But that's not what he's doing.
> Inman is going to be held accountable for his actions.
Seriously? Am I suddenly living in a world in which people can be 'held accountable' for drawing a picture of someone's mom seducing a Kodiak bear? When did this happen?
Seriously? Am I suddenly living in a world in which people can be 'held accountable' for drawing a picture of someone's mom seducing a Kodiak bear? When did this happen?
Libel? Incitement? There's a line - not just of decency but also of the law.
Want to know how I know you don't know what constitutes slander in the US?
Want to know how I know that you don't know what constitutes slander in the U.S.?
Because you think that a picture is slander. A picture is libel, which is a related but separate concept. Both slander and libel involve defamatory statements, but slander is restricted to transitory (i.e., spoken) statements whereas libel refers to published (i.e, written or drawn) statements. Video is either libel or slander depending on how the defamatory statements are presented .
Because you think that a picture is slander. A picture is libel, which is a related but separate concept. Both slander and libel involve defamatory statements, but slander is restricted to transitory (i.e., spoken) statements whereas libel refers to published (i.e, written or drawn) statements. Video is either libel or slander depending on how the defamatory statements are presented .
If Innman hasn't registered his work with the U.S. Copyright office, then he can't sue for copyright infringement damages. Not that he can't claim copyright, just can't litigate. Not sure if he can file after someone posts his copyrighted material and then claim damages though - here's hoping he can!
Copyright for artworks in this context is automatic. At least that's how it works in the UK. Once your create your own art, you hold the automatic copyright. Unless you made the art under commission to someone else.
Now I might be wrong but that's the impression I have had for years.
Now I might be wrong but that's the impression I have had for years.
You are granted copyright automatically yes, and this gives you certain protections like the ability to file DMCA takedown notices etc. However, in order to sue for statutory damages you have to have filed the copyright with the US Patent and Trademark office before the infringement occurred. You can still sue if you register after, but only for actual damages which is harder to prove.
Not entirely true. Under 17 USC § 411, if you are bringing civil action against someone for copyright infringement, you must have registered your work. However, under 17 USC § 106, owners of copyright have exclusive rights to their works (with some caveats), which doesn't have any baring on their ability to sue someone for copyright infringement.
Where I'm a little hazy is in my reading of 17 USC § 411(c) - I believe that you can only sue for copyright infringement within 3 months of the work being "first transmitted" (which I assume also includes publication), and 48 hours after the work has been "transmitted".
Where I'm a little hazy is in my reading of 17 USC § 411(c) - I believe that you can only sue for copyright infringement within 3 months of the work being "first transmitted" (which I assume also includes publication), and 48 hours after the work has been "transmitted".
It's irrelevant, because Inman never said he was going to sue. In fact, he didn't even file a DMCA complaint. He's just exposing FunnyStuff bullying.
I never said that Innman was going to sue. He has made it clear that he won't. However, I'm responding to the comment that "he has stuff on him". As part of the conversation being had, I didn't see what I wrote as irrelevant :-)
Uh, why was this downvoted? The U.S. Copyright Office has this in their FAQ - see here: http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#register
It's not clear from that FAQ itself but if you read PDF (to which the link is broken, but here it is: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf ), they make it pretty clear that the registration can occur after the infringement. However he'd only be able to get actual damages (not statutory damages or attorney's fees) unless it's been less than three months since the work was created.
I did a bit of research, and I believe that it's covered by 17 USC § 411(c). You can only sue for copyright infringement within 3 months of the work being "first transmitted" (which I assume also includes publication), and 48 hours after the work has been "transmitted".
Not sure if there is some other part of the U.S. Code that applies though.
Not sure if there is some other part of the U.S. Code that applies though.
>You can only sue for copyright infringement within 3 months of the work being "first transmitted" (which I assume also includes publication), and 48 hours after the work has been "transmitted".
I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think 411c applies in this case. That subsection refers to works whose transmission and fixation are simultaneous, which I believe is specific to live broadcasts and performances. I'm not entirely clear on how all of the timing language there is supposed to work, but I don't think any of it applies to webcomics anyway.
What would apply, however, is section 412 below that, which basically says what I outlined above; if you want to sue for anything beyond actual proved damages, you have to have registered either before the infringement, or within 3 months of creating the work.
I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think 411c applies in this case. That subsection refers to works whose transmission and fixation are simultaneous, which I believe is specific to live broadcasts and performances. I'm not entirely clear on how all of the timing language there is supposed to work, but I don't think any of it applies to webcomics anyway.
What would apply, however, is section 412 below that, which basically says what I outlined above; if you want to sue for anything beyond actual proved damages, you have to have registered either before the infringement, or within 3 months of creating the work.
Because it's wrong. The FAQ itself states that the benefits of registration are prima facie evidence and statutory damages. You can still litigate, you just need to provide alternate evidence and you don't get to claim statutory damages (you have to prove the damages you're claiming).
Perhaps you should reference title 17 of the U.S. Code. Section 411 deals with registration and civil infringement actions. Specifically 17 USC § 411 (a) says:
"Except for an action brought for a violation of the rights of the author under section 106A (a), and subject to the provisions of subsection (b), [1] no civil action for infringement of the copyright in any United States work shall be instituted until preregistration or registration of the copyright claim has been made in accordance with this title. "
"Except for an action brought for a violation of the rights of the author under section 106A (a), and subject to the provisions of subsection (b), [1] no civil action for infringement of the copyright in any United States work shall be instituted until preregistration or registration of the copyright claim has been made in accordance with this title. "
It's downvoted since it does not apply. Inman does not litigate for copyright infringement, so this is a straw man argument.
As I stated above, I never said that Innman was going to sue. He has made it clear that he won't. However, I'm responding to the comment that "he has stuff on him", one of the examples being brought forward was "copyright infringement". As part of the conversation being had, I didn't see what I wrote as irrelevant, as the poster specifically talked about copyright infringement :-)
That is not how copyright works.
Copyright protects your articles, illustrations, posts, photographs, videos, and other works of creative expression from the time that they are fixed in a tangible medium of expression. It gives the creator of an original work exclusive rights to the work, for a limited time.
That is the true definition of copyright, the second you put pen to paper. You do not need to register with a copyright office.
Copyright protects your articles, illustrations, posts, photographs, videos, and other works of creative expression from the time that they are fixed in a tangible medium of expression. It gives the creator of an original work exclusive rights to the work, for a limited time.
That is the true definition of copyright, the second you put pen to paper. You do not need to register with a copyright office.
Indeed. I never said you have to register your copyright. I only said you need to register your copyright to sue for infringement within the U.S..
Don't know why you're being downvoted, dude. Your comment (and your clarifying comments above/below) are accurate.
Copyright is automatic, but the right to actually litigate a copyright is dependent on manually registering a work. If you register prior to infringement, you are eligible for very generous "statutory damages", which are roughly $100k per act of infringement. If you register after the infringement, you are only eligible for the actual damages (i.e., lost sales or the defendant's ill-gotten earnings from the infringing uses) that you prove in court.
Copyright is automatic, but the right to actually litigate a copyright is dependent on manually registering a work. If you register prior to infringement, you are eligible for very generous "statutory damages", which are roughly $100k per act of infringement. If you register after the infringement, you are only eligible for the actual damages (i.e., lost sales or the defendant's ill-gotten earnings from the infringing uses) that you prove in court.
[deleted]
Reading all the comments on HN is such an emotional roller coaster for me. Prior to my current legal situation, I held many of the same view points that I read here; e.g., "A judge is going to throw this out of court! This is absurd!" I've heard this same sentiment over, and over, and over from friends and lawyers with regard to my case, but guess what? We're about 2.5 years in to litigation, and only a handful of allegations have been dismissed. Several personal allegations are still in the complaint (a complaint is a legal filing in civil cases), so I still face losing everything, depending on the outcome of a jury trial.
The reality is that judges frequently cannot "throw this out of court" because it's not within their power. Judges can only rule on the letter of the law, and civil law is written to give plaintiffs their day in court without much consideration for the accused (yes, I'm a bit biased here). It's disgusting to watch all this play out with other people involved, but it's gut wrenching when it's your $100k+ hard earned cash that has been spent fending off this type of bullshit.