Jump to content

Talk:The Oatmeal and FunnyJunk legal dispute

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Links and Commentary to add to this developing story

[edit]

Response of lawyer "Charles Carreon" to the bad publicity he and his client received for the legal threat: Golijan, Rosa (2012). "Cartoonist turns lawsuit threat into $100K charity fundraiser". Retrieved 2012-06-13. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Blog discussion of the incident, by a lawyer: "How Dare You! That's The Wrong Kind of Bullying!". 13 June 2012. Retrieved 2012-06-13.

As this incident develops, probably more should be added.

Photo of the Money has been posted at The Oatmeal's blog, along with description of the process and other unusable information: http://theoatmeal.com/blog/charity_money ; sorry, earlier I accidentally posted this link into the article itself. htom (talk) 06:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BoingBoing has more photos and a story http://boingboing.net/2012/07/09/oatmeal.html htom (talk) 06:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/07/finding-the-mystery-man-behind-funnyjunk/ CallawayRox (talk) 18:12, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mother seducing bear image

[edit]

How about adding a copy of the mother/bear image to the article? I don't think The Oatmeal would object, and it would add some visual interest as well as being the most awesome (and probably only) image of bear seduction on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.8.177.85 (talk) 00:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In order for us to upload that image onto Wikipedia, we need Matthew Inman's explicit permission. YuMaNuMa Contrib 01:34, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
More specifically, we need Inman's permission to allow the image to be redistributed and redownloaded at will, including for commercial gain, in order to comply with Wikipedia's Creative Commons licensing. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 01:36, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It would be awesome if we could get the drawing and the photo of the cash. CallawayRox (talk) 19:31, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I sent a request to The Oatmeal via his personal assistant requesting a donation. I also appealed directly to him via twitter to suggest he donate the pictures to Wikipedia. I have yet to hear anything on either angle. Hasteur (talk) 23:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tara Carreon

[edit]

Someone identifying themselves as Tara Carreon, Charles Carreon's wife [1][2] has been responding to comments. It is unknown if they are legit. CallawayRox (talk) 16:51, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Primary/nonreliable sources

[edit]

I've been cleaning up the references in this article and I've noticed there's a lot of primary and/or self-published sources, which shouldn't be used in favor of secondary or tertiary sources. There were also at least two references to Reddit and a tweet, which I removed (social networks are not a reliable source). Primary sources should be deleted outright unless the information they'd be supporting wouldn't be referenced at all.

There's also two links to blogs on the "The incident also spurred commentary..." line, which is itself a little WP:WEASEL-y. Are there other, more reputable sources to back this up? Otherwise it should be removed entirely.

I'm also going to remove the quote from FunnyJunk entirely, as not only is it a primary source backing it up, but the link itself is also dead. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 20:49, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response comment: Both of those sources are independent from the subjects of the article (one is a newspaper, the other is a legal blog that's been up for years and quoted in major news sources), and both discuss the dispute in depth and then raise legitimate issues about the DMCA (and filing DMCA complaints) beyond the Oatmeal/FunnyJunk dispute itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.136.82.50 (talk) 15:48, June 17, 2012 (UTC)‎
Although secondary sources are important, you mischaracterize policy. Primary sources are often appropriate for supporting simple facts, like the amount of money raised, or the fact that The Oatmeal sent a response to the demand letter, which are not open to interpretation (see WP:PRIMARY). As such I've removed some but not all of the {{psc}} tags. Dcoetzee 17:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FunnyJunk owner "Admin"

[edit]

According to Reddit comments the owner of FunnyJunk goes by the name "Admin." His real name is unknown. "The administrator behind FunnyJunk has chosen to remain anonymous, his lawyer tells Comic Riffs."[3] CallawayRox (talk) 17:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/07/finding-the-mystery-man-behind-funnyjunk/ CallawayRox (talk) 18:13, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who's mom

[edit]

Inman says that it's FunnyJunk's mom in the drawing. Carreon persistently takes offense at it being his mom. CallawayRox (talk) 17:14, 19 June 2012 (UTC) Edit: Funnyjunk's admin's mother is named Ko Yong-hui The owner of funnyjunk is usually personified as Kim-Jong Un — Preceding unsigned comment added by James10898 (talk • contribs) 01:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IndieGoGo or Indiegogo

[edit]

There are two different casing patterns used in this article for IndieGoGo (Indiegogo), both of which I have seen in the wild (id est, out on the web). The Indiegogo page makes no direct reference to the proper casing, and "IndieGoGo" redirects to the Indiegogo page. Which is the correct case patterning for the company — name-casing or camelCase/Pascal case? Whichever it is, we should adjust the non-conforming version found in the article (unless it is within a direct quote, of course). — al-Shimoni (talk) 06:41, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Every page of Indiegogo's website says at the bottom "© 2012 Indiegogo Inc. All Rights Reserved". This page uses the casing "Indiegogo" at least 6 times. Their Google blurb reads "Indiegogo is the world's largest global funding platform." I believe that is the official casing. Carreon correctly capitalised the name in his court documents. However, Popehat and several news outlets incorrectly capitalised it as IndieGoGo, IndieGogo, etc. Dcoetzee 20:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename?

[edit]

It seems that FunnyJunk are no longer involved in this and there will be no case directly involving them. Should we be looking to rename the article The Oatmeal and Charles Carreon legal dispute now that is almost certain that any case that gets as far as an actual court will be brought by Carreon personally? --DanielRigal (talk) 19:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are 2 parts, Operation BearLove Good, Cancer Bad‎ and Carreon v. Inman et al‎. FunnyJunk is background at this point. CallawayRox (talk) 19:31, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that because FunnyJunk has faded out of the spotlight, the current arcticle title no longer makes sense, and that there should probably be an arcticle on Carreon v. Inman et al, but I'm not sure about the rest of it. Any suggestions? 70.79.198.253 (talk) 02:40, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Splitting off the article further would probably not be helpful, and I'm not convinced the separate portions of the dispute are independently notable or would ever develop into full-length articles. That said, I do agree with the two commenters here, in that the article's title doesn't really describe its contents. I'm at a loss for what to more specifically call it, though. Perhaps something like The Oatmeal legal controversies? That format feels like a standard convention. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 04:59, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Or Legal disputes involving The Oatmeal, or something along those lines. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 05:00, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
With the recent development of Doe v. Carreon, I propose we rename it Charles Carreon incident or something similar. Cleary, he's the central figure in this. 70.79.198.253 (talk) 00:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like this article only describes actions taken by Carreon that developed originally from the Oatmeal/Funnyjunk dispute. The Charles Carreon incident title is ambiguous since he has a long career and has dealt with many other cases, probably some of them involving incidents of their own. That said the Carreon aspect has definitely taken on a life of its own, overshadowing the original conflict. An article about legal disputes involving The Oatmeal might be independently useful since it could describe any other legal disputes that they have or will encounter. Dcoetzee 04:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In efect isn't is Carreon et al v. Inman et al? Shritwod (talk) 07:59, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's more Charles Carreon vs. the World. 2012 Charles Carreon legal disputes? CallawayRox (talk) 18:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Satirical Charles"

[edit]

I just wanted to put this out there - for a brief time, the name of the anonymous "Satirical Charles" was publicly available on Register.com before they swiftly hid it. The fact that it was public means there are plenty of people who know it - I know it, for that matter. However, in Doe v. Carreon, "Satirical Charles" is making his anonymity a big deal, and apparently does not like the fact that it was revealed. This begs a major, important question - are we or are we not putting his name in the arcticle? There are definitely cases both ways, so I figure we need a decision on this. 70.79.198.253 (talk) 20:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant policy is Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Privacy_of_names. In my opinion, the name is relevant and revealing their name can do no harm, since they only really have one enemy in the world (Carreon) and Carreon already has it. However, the information must still be verifiable using independent reliable sources, like a news report, official statement or record, or court document - a blog post, or your memory of what Register.com used to say, would not suffice. Dcoetzee 20:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So far I have not seen his name in any of the coverage I have read. That suggests that other sources regard his anonymity as still an ongoing thing. We probably should not report the name if he still retains a meaningful degree of anonymity, even if some people know the name as a result of the information released and then withdrawn under rather odd circumstances. I assume that there is no significance to his identity beyond him being Satirical Charles? If he was a public figure under his real name then that would be very different.
Has a solid RS source reported his name? If so, the cat is out of the bag and we can't harm him any more by reporting what is already published and widely known. OTOH, if we lack a good RS source, we can't use the name. We don't do original research. We don't do outings. We also don't withhold his name out of sympathy. The sources should guide us to the right answer here. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:59, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On rapeutation.com, Charles Carreon has apparently unmasked the guy. I'm not sure if thiis counts as "cat out of the bag", but I suspect it does. This is a dark day. 70.79.198.253 (talk) 09:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I very much doubt that that qualifies as a reliable source. If it qualifies at all, I expect it can only be regarded as a reliable source for Carreon's claims and opinions, not of matters of objective fact. I still think that we should only consider listing the alleged name if a solid RS has already done so. Even then I would see no really compelling reason to do so. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:08, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And now, he's basically come out himself. Responding to a post on Popehat (a law blog) called "The Oatmeal v. Funnyjunk, Part X: Philanthropy > Douchebaggery", a user named "Chris R." said, quote, "I do not support oppressing Charles Carreon's right to free speech. You have to defend the lowest of the low in order to protect the highest of the high. If anyone is DOSing him I hope they are brought to justice. If anyone TOSes him, I'll personally find him a new host if I have to. I am Satirical Charles and I approve this message." That's about as close to a confession as you can get, so I'd say the cat's out of the bag now. 70.79.198.253 (talk) 00:12, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An Internet comment, regardless of where it is, is still not a reliable source. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 02:37, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rapeutation.com

[edit]

I have a serious question regarding Rapeutation.com, which is allegedly run by Charles Carreon. The thing is, everything on that site is so over-the-top that I am beginning to doubt whether Carreon is actually the one running the site. Whois says it's registered privately, which to me is a bit of a red flag. I don't know if we have any actual proof that Charles Carreon is the man behind Rapeutation.com. Thoughts? 70.79.198.253 (talk) 09:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the reliable source cited in the article (Ars Technica), there's other evidence the site is controlled by Carreon. These include the materials on the site like the correspondence after Carreon's Photobucket account was cancelled for a TOS violation, the embed of the YouTube video which appears on Carreon's channel [4], and the outing of Carreon's previously anonymous critics. Jokestress (talk) 16:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also Nader Library has been known to be run by the Carreons for awhile now. CallawayRox (talk) 17:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why did Carreon drop the lawsuit?

[edit]

I'm sorry, but I don't understand why it was stopped? And from reading the sources, Carreon's comments seem strange (like about mud wrestling and that). I'm unsure if there was something I've missed, because it seems as if this was all a joke?--Stikman (talk) 00:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After I've read around more, everything seems so... well... nonsensical. It's as if he went from a lawyer with a grudge into some sort of clown. It's as if his wife and himself are trying to make themselves seem as absurd as possible, especially when you read the content on that Rapeutation.com website.

Does anyone know why he is doing this? Has he said why? Or is it just a mystery?--Stikman (talk) 12:17, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know where I'd find out about this?--Stikman (talk) 23:41, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there are any canonical sources for what goes on in somebody's head. Presumably he has his reasons but we don't know what they are and it is not for us to speculate. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Missing certificate that the money was actually donated as promised

[edit]
Proof has been presented (sworn testimony to a court) that the funds were mailed. Drop this line of inquiry and please assume good fath on the actions of others Hasteur (talk) 17:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

As you can look up, Inman originally promised to post proof that the money raised was actually donated (and not, say, kept for himself). Yet there is no proof posted. If we are devoting an entire page to this, I think the matter of the missing proof is a rather important detail, especially if we are going to pretend to be NPoV (even though 99% of us are probably OatMeal fans).

If I am wrong about the donation certificate having been posted somewhere, we should include _that_ in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.26.24.200 (talk) 01:31, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Unsourced claims are not to be added regardless of if they help or hurt either side. The proof that the donation was made is 3rd level abstraction at best to the topic at hand. I removed your insertion as it gets into the "Mr President, when did you stop beating your wife" argument that nobody can win. Prior to reinstatement please demonstrate the relavance to the matter at hand. Hasteur (talk) 20:59, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(1) What unsourced claims? Are you not aquainted with the case? Do I need to look up Inman's original promise? (2) Funnyjunk raised doubts as to where the money will go. Thus it is important to follow up on the resolution of this matter. (3) You wifebeating-analogy is gratituous and unmerited. If there is a certificate posted online somewhere, then that would be the proof that would seal this matter. 46.26.24.200 (talk) 00:59, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I used the talk page and I am waiting. 46.26.24.200 (talk) 19:36, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
IP Address, your need to pursue this ancillary debate is questionable at best. The unsourced claim that you wanted to add is regarding "Did he make the donation?". Great for the great annonymous "Admin" at funnyjunk for trying to shovel more dirt on the matter. I do think the analogy is perfectly apt as Wikipedia does not post hearsay or rumors unless they are backed up by facts. Please read WP:BURDEN,WP:RELEVANCE, and WP:NOTSCANDAL. Furthermore I observe, as anybody who is at least partially familiar with how the internet works, that you are posting from the Canary Islands. Your usage of the english language is very good for someone whose native language probably is Spanish. I am not yet accusing you of anything, however if you wish to continue this line of interrogation I will (as I am sure others who are watching this) begin scrutinizing your edits further. Hasteur (talk) 00:23, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Content on Wikipedia needs to be verified by a reliable source. We can't say that in the article that "proof of the money being donated has been given" but the reverse is also true. An edit saying "there is no proof posted." needs to be verified by a reliable source, otherwise it's WP:OR. Just because a Wikipedia editor has not seen proof does not mean it isn't there. Given the level of publicity the whole event was given, surely some reliable source would question whether the money was donated or not; if so, great. If not, we can't go on our own experience and conclude that our knowledge is all encompassing. - User:SudoGhost (Away) 21:43, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Does it not occur to you that a lot of turists visit the Canary Islands? - Let me rephrase, then: Given that FunnyJunk attempted to halt the fundraiser on the grounds that the money would not go to the charities posted, and given that Inman said he would publish the certificate would it not be pertinent to include the certificate? 89.150.118.208 (talk) 23:59, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So, you openly admit that the 46.26 IP address is the same person typing at the keyboard as this new IP address in Copenhagen, Denmark? To remove the potential of what appears to be deliberate evasion regarding your editing behavior. Let me rephrase the assertion you're trying to make so you can see how silly it sounds. Let's say I set up a blog in which I assert that because we have yet to see a certificate saying that the Red Cross has recieved the money for the Hurricane Katrina teleton we should go onto the broadcast networks pages and announce it quite loudly that there has yet to be any confirmation. In addition it was Charles Carreon who was engaged in legal maneuvers to prevent The Oatmeal from collecting/distributing the funds. In Carreon's lawsuit in no way did Funny Junk appear on the list of members to the lawsuit. Hasteur (talk) 00:27, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I am that same person. I appreciate that your facts seem to be more accurate than what I reported, but your analogy is still missing a few vital steps. The teleton shoud have announced up front that once the money was donated, the certificate would be published. That is not clear from your analogy. Likewise, some third party should publically take action with the courts to sow doubts as to whether the money from the teleton actually reached the Red Cross. That is also missing from your analogy. Also, being European, I have only scant knowledge of the events you reference with regards to the teleton and such. 89.150.118.208 (talk) 02:48, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since people seem so preoccupied with my intentions, let me state that I am an Oatmeal-fan. I followed this whole affair. I donated money. But when this post was aired http://theoatmeal.com/blog/charity_money I, and a few other posters asked where the certificate was. No answer. Since then, I have felt mildly unsettled by this. And then, when this lawyer comes crawling, implying fraud, I think this missing certificate becomes an even more central matter of the case. I hope that the charities recieved their money but why has the certificate not been posted? 89.150.118.208 (talk) 02:52, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we the Wikipedia could Assume Good Faith on behalf of Innman and assume that he did make the appropriate donations Hasteur (talk) 23:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
IPs 89.150.118.208 and 46.26.24.200, this is not a forum for speculating on this matter. If we have published sources to discuss, we can consider inclusion of them. If you have personal concerns about a donation, you should contact the beneficiaries, the IRS, or someone directly involved if you are not getting answers from the recipient of your donation. We do not publish original research and can only discuss verifiable information printed in a reliable source. Jokestress (talk) 00:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, they've admitted to being the same individual atTalk:Ole Nydahl. I'd check for Tor exit node next time they show up. Yworo (talk) 02:04, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: It's listed as one of the documents in the case that the primary Attorney for Innman. Document is [5] Hasteur (talk) 02:55, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am pleased with this information because I was just reading another person claiming something similar along the general lines of Oatmeal being a money-scam. (http://badwebcomics.wikidot.com/the-oatmeal) I appreaciate that Wiki is not a forum etc. etc. - but I could do without the personal suspicion. Please do check my exit tor. You'll find that this is my real IP. I have no agenda other than stated and it think its rather ridiculous to portray the matter as if I "admitted" something when I never denied, or made the slightest attempt to hide any of this. I am particularly happy with Hasteur's post which definitely settles the matter. Though I will still contend that no all of the replies in this thread have been equally factually-minded. 89.150.118.208 (talk) 07:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To elaborate, the general tendency to adress my motives, rather than my arguments are disparaging. Especially on a site like this. 89.150.118.208 (talk) 07:43, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let me make myself clear. I don't like you. You attack living people. I wish you'd stay away. Yworo (talk) 07:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let me make myself clear. You seem way to emotional for what you do. 89.150.118.208 (talk) 17:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Outdated information

[edit]

Just so everyone knows and we don't duplicate effort, I am working on updating this article and the Charles Carreon article. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:04, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For recent updates you might want to consult this tag on Popehat which has received updates relatively recently and links to some useful primary sources. Dcoetzee 05:53, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Saves me some work. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:08, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Receipts / Proof?

[edit]

I'm an Oatmeal fan, but I have a question. In recent times, several internet celebs have used "charities" to enrich themselves. With Oatmeal, he said he'd post receipts for donating the 211k to charities. But where are the receipts? Were they ever posted? If not, why not? Quote: "I'll be sending checks to the charities. I'll also post receipts as well as public confirmations from both charities that they received every penny that was promised." Source: http://theoatmeal.com/blog/fundraiser_update

2.110.96.126 (talk) 03:08, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no point in asking us. We don't know and it is not for us to engage in original research trying to find out. You could ask him directly. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:06, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Oatmeal_and_FunnyJunk_legal_dispute&oldid=1256560903"