Matthew Inman Takes Photos Of $211,223 In Cash To Send To FunnyJunk & Charles Carreon

from the enjoy dept

Charles Carreon dropped his highly questionable case against Matthew Inman, IndieGoGo, the American Cancer Society and the National Wildlife Fund last week. It was pretty clear he was going to lose (and in a big, bad way). However, he claimed “victory” because, to avoid further complications, Inman made sure that all the money went directly from IndieGoGo and/or Paypal to the charities, so there was never any question of what he might do with the money. Of course, as part of his original pitch, he had promised to photograph all of the money raised as cash and send it to Funnyjunk. Inman got around the rules by taking out the same amount of money from the bank, and photographing it in a variety of different poses, some of which I’m assuming Inman won’t mind if we reproduce here.

First up, the money in a duffel bag and laid out on a table, including a shot of Inman in front of it.



Then there’s the fun stuff, including arranging the money to show a few special messages, mainly directed at Charles Carreon, even if the original focus was on FunnyJunk.

And all of it concludes with a package which is apparently being sent to Charles Carreon:
I will admit to being a bit confused about one key thing. Inman had originally promised that the photo and the drawing were to be sent to FunnyJunk. Of course, in all of this mess, it didn’t seem like FunnyJunk officially said anything, and I don’t recall FunnyJunk’s owner ever being identified. Instead, everything shifted over to being about Carreon, due to Carreon’s behavior. Remember, even though the threats were technically “from” FunnyJunk, the eventual lawsuit was from Carreon alone. We had noted that Carreon appeared to be wrong in claiming that the drawing of the mother and the bear was about his mother, when the text of the campaign seemed clearly to be indicating the mother was “FunnyJunk’s” mother. Of course, if no one knows who FunnyJunk actually is, perhaps it’s reasonable to ship this stuff to FunnyJunk’s “lawyer,” which would be Charles Carreon.

Either way, we await Carreon’s response.

Filed Under: , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Matthew Inman Takes Photos Of $211,223 In Cash To Send To FunnyJunk & Charles Carreon”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
79 Comments
John Doe says:

Gotta love some people's definition of victory

However, he claimed “victory”

When I was in high school, a punk kid was picking on myself and a friend. Finally my friend got in a fight with the kid, got him in a headlock and proceeded to punch him in the face repeatedly. The punk finally pushed away and asked my friend if he had had enough. I guess the punk felt like my friends arm might have been getting tired?

BentFranklin (profile) says:

It’s one thing to chide someone for overreacting to internet criticism if they try to use IP laws for censorship, and that’s newsworthy. But let’s not give continued provocation like this so much press. Stay above the fray.

When I recommend Techdirt to my friends and this is what they see they click away before they get a look at the scary stuff. It detracts from your message and makes Techdirt look less serious.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Carreon made an idiot of himself it’s true. But now that he has withdrawn and is licking his wounds while admittedly claiming the least convincing win in history.
Perhaps we can now get back to how Inman has accused people of theft, when no one has stolen anything and has basically refused to use the DMCA process with regards to funnyjunk and then whined about having to do so to get stuff he doesn’t want up taken down, even when funnyjunk have gone to the lengths of chasing down everything he complains about outside the DMCA process and tried to take them down too.
And though he hasn’t threatened to litigate, which is to his credit, he has otherwise adopted much of the same tone and attitude as the MPAA and RIAA which writers and readers here normally consider to be irrational and unreasonable.

Niall (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

He is entitled to whine. We care more about actual abuses of the system, or when the whiners are (massively) hypocritical. In this case, Inman may have moaned a bit, but then he let it be. For a whole year, before FJ/Carreon poked the hornet’s nest.

We pick on the **AAs mainly because they consistently refuse to innovate, try to stifle innovation wherever possible, and tout suing grandmas and laser printers as ‘beating piracy’. Somehow, I don’t think Inman is anywhere like in the same league. If TechDirt had to post a story every time someone whined about the DMCA but didn’t do much else, we’d drown under even more crud than the trollshills spout.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

You have valid points there, but we do also castigate them for claiming that copyright infringement is theft a statement Inman has also made.
We also castigate them for complaining about said “theft” rather than simply using the DMCA process which is there to specifically deal with the complaint of others using your work without permission and Inman has also complained about being expected to use it.
Carreon’s idiotic behaviour was obnoxious and a distraction and indeed an entertainment albeit of the sideshow tattooed and bearded pig lady variety but some of Inman’s attitudes are of a piece with the nonsense heard from the copyright extremists.
Of course he is “entitled” to whine, but he doesn’t deserve to be praised for doing so unreasonably just because Carreon was a bigger douche.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

“Inman was wrong for calling it theft, if he has done so (haven’t seen proof for that yet, to be honest, I haven’t looked for it either)
But why would we keep saying it, if Inman hasn’t called it theft ever since? Should we keep banging on that old saw? “

Oh, for heaven’s sake, that’s how this whole thing started, it’s fundamentally what Carreon was initially complaining about in his hamfisted, thickheaded, idiotic, moronic and overly aggressive way, although he specifically targeted the claim by Inman that deliberate copyright infringement was the business model of Funnyjunk rather than the claim that it was theft.

http://theoatmeal.com/blog/funnyjunk_letter

Marcel de Jong (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

Indeed, he does call it stolen in those blogposts, and that’s probably bad, but to be fair, his copyright notices have been removed from the comics. Which is worse than just copyright infringement, it’s removing every bit of credit he could get from it.

Sure he still has the originals, but if you don’t know who’s property it is, how can you find them?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

I don’t get your point. All of this was reported on in the course of Techdirt’s coverage along with the coverage I’ve read from other sources.

If people are inclined to make judgements on this kind of behaviour then they can draw their conclusions and make their judgements on the basis of such reporting.

Personally I think it was a bit silly of Inman, but find such silliness to be trivial and entirely normal on the internet and note the comedic nature of his website and how very apt and appropriate a bit of internet silliness is in that context.

This is why I mildly judge but mostly don’t care about that unfunny comic woman reported on Techdirt as having an internet hissy fit at Something Awful.

Yeah, her behaviour is a bit silly, but it’s the internet stupid.

If she starts wasting the time and resources of the justice system and making a legal nusiance of herself, I’ll review my opinion of her.

Equally, Inman’s behaviour was an example of typical internet silliness, and so entirely human and mundanely ordinary, not to mention contextually apt and appropriate, and so nothing non drama whores would make a fuss out of.

E. Zachary Knight (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Perhaps we can now get back to how Inman has accused people of theft, when no one has stolen anything

You are correct. He did use the dreaded “theft” word. It is not the correct word to use. It would have been best for him to use the proper term of copyright infringement.

has basically refused to use the DMCA process with regards to funnyjunk and then whined about having to do so to get stuff he doesn’t want up taken down

He didn’t refuse to use the DMCA process. He realized that it was a pointless and fruitless endeavor that would have eaten more time and effort than he was physically able to do. He realized that even if he did send proper DMCA takedowns for all the comics he found on that one site, for each one taken down, 50 more would have popped up whether on Funnyjunk or elsewhere.

Instead on expending all that energy and resources on a fruitless quest, he instead vented his frustration and then went about his business. Funnyjunk was the one that escalated things.

even when funnyjunk have gone to the lengths of chasing down everything he complains about outside the DMCA process and tried to take them down too.

They did that as a purely reactionary and defensive move than anything else. They had hoped that it would have eased the complaints that Inman and others had against them. They were not required to do so.

And though he hasn’t threatened to litigate, which is to his credit, he has otherwise adopted much of the same tone and attitude as the MPAA and RIAA which writers and readers here normally consider to be irrational and unreasonable.

He complained and then went about his business. That is nothing like what the MPAA and the RIAA have done. Had the MPAA/RIAA simply complained about disruptive technology and then went about their business, we would not be having this conversation.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Again, plenty of valid points there, however, the misuse of language is one of the more dangerous parts of MPAA and RIAA agenda. I would have thought you would understand that words are very powerful and their misuse equally so.

I think though that you are attempting to split hairs, when saying that Inman’s claims which were both libellous and inaccurate and despite being the exact same foundation that is used by the various AA’s in their push to extend copyright and destroy rights that were until recently taken for granted.
In a way we have been lucky that **AA’s and their ilk didn’t take Inman’s approach as their ridiculous law suits and so on have attracted far more attention and therefore more opposition to the laws that they are getting passed on the basis that copyright infringement is just the same as theft and that businesses like Google, Youtube etc business models are based on that copyright infringment.
If they had gotten all their constraints to personal freedom in place before acting, then the world would be a different place even now and the future would be far bleaker.

Anonymous Coward says:

Inman got around the rules by taking out the same amount of money from the bank, and photographing it in a variety of different poses, some of which I’m assuming Inman won’t mind if we reproduce here.

Nice copyright infringement, Pirate Mike. Why ask permission when you can just take what you want?

Anshar (profile) says:

Confusion

“I will admit to being a bit confused about one key thing. Inman had originally promised that the photo and the drawing were to be sent to FunnyJunk.”

Insofar as Carreon represents Funkyjunk, it would be logical to send the promised photo and drawing to him. Once someone retains legal counsel it is appropriate to communicate through that counsel.

GMacGuffin says:

Re: Confusion

It’s ethically okay for the party himself to communicate directly with the other party. Only lawyers are precluded from communicating with parties they know to be represented by counsel.

But … in normal circumstances (not here), a party should generally not be communicating with anyone about the case but their own counsel, as anything they say is admissible against them (even if the person they said it to gets it totally wrong). Here… no matter.

ltlw0lf (profile) says:

Re: Re: Confusion

It’s ethically okay for the party himself to communicate directly with the other party. Only lawyers are precluded from communicating with parties they know to be represented by counsel.

Well, that and law enforcement. But yes, parties may communicate directly with other parties without involving counsel. It is smarter to talk through the lawyers, since anything you say can and will be used by the other party, but you can.

ebeth822 says:

No brainer

The letter that Carreon sent on FunnyJunk’s behalf said that the $20k payoff should be sent to FunnyJunk through FJ’s attorney (Carreon). And no, FJ’s owner/admin has not been identified in the coverage of all this. At least one article indicated that this was intentional and done to protect the FunnyJunk admin’s anonymity.

The Groove Tiger (profile) says:

Re: Re: A Small Technical Point.

The name of optical fiber is optical fiber, which is the one used in fiber optics. I don’t really get what you’re getting at with that, othen that “fiber” is also used as a short term for “optical fiber” when talking about networking (unlike “fiber” when used to say, weaving).

Suspicion (profile) says:

Wonderful! Thank you Mr. Inman for hopefully encouraging Mr. Carreon to begin digging again. I was despondent when Mr. Carreon dropped the lawsuits – reading his ridiculous tirades was a great way to start each day with a laugh. C’mon Mr. Carreon, don’t let Mr. Inman get the better of you; get back on your horse and take another shot at the windmill.

Anonymous Coward says:

Unbelievable

Now he seems to be not only declaring victory, but trying to take substantial credit for the fundraiser as well…

“While it’s not the largest sum of money I have ever had a substantial role in raising,” he wrote to me, referencing the $211,223.04 collected by Inman’s fundraiser, “it is the first time I’ve seen it go to charity, and I think it’s great.”

http://digitallife.today.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/07/10/12667082-will-laywer-and-cartoonist-continue-fighting-for-charity-in-the-wrestling-ring?lite

This guy needs to get smacked hard. I do hope at least the EFF is going to pursue legal fees.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...