How do funnyjunk items work

You got your first item, that' s it, BOOM! There is more! Combine different items and get even more Bad ass items! Trade with other players! Buy some Bad ass new items in the auction house or sell your items for admin is updating the game primetime to time, so always Be prepared for more new Bad ass items to collett! I hope there will be a few people now, going to try this out, See you there and have fun!

Also check out the description with plenty of usefull links for the game! But Why did FunnyJunk come back so heavy-handed with a defamation lawsuit threat and, even more strange, do so almost a year later?

The answer seems to be found in their letter, which pays special attention to the SEO implications of the first battle with The Oatmeal.

The rest of the first page, now, seems to be almost entirely stories, like this one, covering the battle.

Instead, the damages were likely a negotiating tactic to get Inman to remove the previous posts about FunnyJunk and maybe negotiate a much smaller settlement. If that is the case, then the plan horribly backfired and a previous controversy has been re-ignited in a much bigger and worse way. No matter what happens legally with this case, more people than ever are aware of this dispute and most seem to be siding with The Oatmeal.

If the SEO implications of the first battle were bad for FunnyJunk, these are likely going to be catastrophic. However, on June 2nd that changed. Ancient History and Present Arguments Some time about two years ago, Inman learned that many of his comics were appearing on FunnyJunk without his permission and, often, without attribution or even having the attribution portion of the image lopped off.

This resulted in Inman being flooded with emails and Facebook page comments on the subject. A Difficult Defamation Case Defamation law is handled largely on a state-to-state basis. We had nothing to do with it! I have had searches where such notices were mentioned, so Google would seem to have the means. Cut off the money and the behavior will stop.

Actually, I don't know now how hard it would be. And the "Original" is? Don't forget, computers are smart but dumb.

In theory, the original is the one that appears first. In practice, this won't work, because a targeted spider of, say, the Oatmeal website will be able to grab new material and post it elsewhere with modified headers a bit earlier than the original What's interesting is that Inman just wants attribution - which appears to be the one thing he can't get, and the one thing that seems the most reasonable.

Isn't it hard for Funny Junk to automatically give attribution if users upload images say from their hard disk? I'm wondering what would be ideal solution for proper attribution. There is attribution in the images themselves, but someone is cropping them out.

Someone is going out of their way to make sure he is not attributed. Are you suggesting that FJ itself is doing the work of clipping out attribution from content their users upload? So honest users are motivated to create something high-quality to upload.

Dishonest users are motivated to remove attribution from someone else's high-quality work. I don't think you can pin this part of the problem directly onto FJ though that's where the site revenue goes.

On one level, FJ doesn't need any 'technical' means for enforcing attribution. But they do need to expend the manpower to investigate reports of misattributed content, and to actually correct them either changing the attribution or removal. I mean, this mechanism should exist anyways for dealing with 'internal' attribution disputes some user reuploads another user's actual original content from FJ. Other user generated content sites like deviantArt have proecsses and mechanisms set up for this.

Maybe they could use Tineye, somehow? They deleted all content attributed to him - which is as simple as just searching for "The Oatmeal" - and then threw in a word filter to replace "The Oatmeal" with "The Fag".

Not really the same thing as deleting or banning all his content, especially as he gave them a list of content which was still present without attribution which they did nothing about. Perhaps there's a legal snag with giving attribution, being that, by giving attribution, they're also admitting they don't have any right to show the content and question, and shooting themselves in the foot legally down the road.

Perhaps there is a business model here? Create a Tineye style crawler that digs the web for matching images and is smart enough to serve up DMCA notices for a small monthly fee to content makers. It will track compliance and put it all in a nice dashboard so creators don't get overwhelmed reining in the copy cats.

GettyImages does this, or something very similar. They buy the rights to photos on Flickr, and they have a crawler out looking for instances of those photos. The order in which they do these things is unknown to me. Correct me with I'm wrong - but I think all DMCA notices have to be electronically signed by a human under penalty of perjury.

Whilst I think only one or two people have been convicted of sending false DMCA notices, the penalties are stiff enough to not let a program sign DMCA notices on my behalf. So just pile up the infringing sites and put a "SEND" button next to them? I wouldn't adopt this business model without an insanely good team of programmers Maybe even both. The difficult bit is the finding though, not the verifying; use the code to do the finding and identifying, present both to the human who clicks the 'yes on penalty of perjury' button and you're done.

ZachPruckowski on June 2, root parent prev next [—]. Which works out great until you screw up and mis-identify something, and then you've committed perjury We had nothing to do with it! We're innocent! And ebaums since For that matter it's similar to what TV stations do. Now a key difference is that TV usually pays for the original content, but from the consumer's point of view it's the same: find OC, slap your station logo in the corner, and surround it with advertising.

All those clip shows like 'craziest police chases' and 'worst TV moments' rely on this model. Hell, there's whole channels that rely on it This seems to be endemic in American screen culture, slightly less so in the print world. In contrast, European copyright has a side feature called 'moral rights' 'droite d'auteur' - even if you sell the copyright, the original author always retains the right to be identified as the author.

There's no financial obligation associated with this for the copyright owner, but it ensures the creator remains associated with the work. My limited recall is that in commercial copyright infringement disputes, courts take a strict approach to evaluating lost profits, but in cases where someone has stripped out the identity of the creator there are often additional sanctions, since it's considered an attack upon the creator's ability to earn a living in the future by being identifiable from their existing work.

I'd need time to dig up citations for that, so don't rely on it. Not quite the same. Unlikely to run into a need for copyright clearance. Fair use. Which isn't to say those shows don't suck. On Grooveshark though, attribution to the artist is actually unavoidable. No, two years ago, Grooveshark existed ostensibly to allow artists to upload their own work. So what really happened was that the majority of the content there was major-label music being attributed to "kubraffle" and the like.

It's a bit different at FJ because the Oatmeal isn't mainstream, it just sort of appears in someone's vision and is then discarded. Music searching is a different sort of experience. We're not talking about user experiences, we're talking about the tactics used by the hosting party to disclaim any responsibility while being complicit in what the users are doing. I didn't think I had anything to say about this.

But, for unrelated reasons, I just went looking for a link to the hilarious hour webcomic, Blotchmen. It displays nothing but a wordpress. I guess, if worst comes to worst, I'll have to look for it on some site like FunnyJunk and hope it's there. What is the moral of this story? People copy the work of artists rather than linking because they can make money from sleazy ads, and that is not good.

But there is another reason to copy: Links suck. They really really suck. They don't just suck in the long term: They suck in real time. Blotchmen is only three years old.

Links are unreliable on a technical level blogs break, poorly cached sites fall over with every slight breeze , on a commercial level licenses change, DRM becomes obsolete, what was once free is now behind a paywall, what was once purchasable is now off the market and the copyright will last until after I'm dead and legally nebulous one DMCA takedown notice can remove a link forever, sometimes even if the notice is fraudulent or invalid.

There are a hundred things that can go wrong with a link, and one of them usually does, generally within five years or less. All forms of communication entail compromises - who has control, how persistent they are, how easy they are to access. If you own a book, you know it won't disappear - but you also have to move it around with you, and it's never going to get updated unless you buy a new one. The alternative to linking is to have a hugely denormalized web where owners don't control their own content, have no way to update it and little incentive to publish it.

Yes, some web sites disappear if there is so little interest in their content that it's not worth maintaining them. But it's still better than books, where if interest was limited, it probably never got published in the first place. The irony is certainly not lost on me.

CD-ROMs are dead as a medium. Arguing against them is a straw man. It's not going to be again no matter how much anyone might wish it. 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.

Carreon's public relations self-immolation reached new levels on 15 June, four days after Inman launched his charity campaign and publicly told Carreon and FunnyJunk to fuck off on his blog. Carreon's personal lawsuit claims that Inman incited others to cybervandalism, argues that Inman wasn't authorised as a commercial fundraiser for the charities, and was disparaging their names.

His suit also pressed the charities to police who was raising money in their name. Indiegogo dismissed the claim, while Inman has now encouraged everyone to stop hounding Carreon, and has also suggested in an open letter to the lawyer that he stop digging himself any deeper.

In the meantime, his fundraising campaign has topped 10 times the original target — and it's still going. Carreon: 0. Meanwhile, those Oatmeal comics may still be on Funnyjunk — though the site has disabled its search function, and Inman said that it had removed the many copied ones he has complained about. So everything is at status quo ante — apart from the money going to the National Wildlife Federation and the American Cancer Society.

Let's hope the sick dolphins appreciate it. This article is more than 9 years old. The Oatmeal is raising huge amounts of money for charity by very publicly thumbing its nose at a lawyer acting for Funnyjunk — but that's hiding the real truth about the problems online comic strips face.

Wrong approach "If he'd have emailed me politely and asked me to take the post down, I would have considered doing that," Inman says. Faster, pussycat! Draw, draw! Reuse this content.