You say that like the people/person who runs funnyjunk has any real control over whether or not the posters give credit.

You say that like the people/person who runs funnyjunk doesn't have absolute control over everything that goes on on their website.

I was just browsing and saw something from The Oatmeal. The pure volume of stuff posted makes it probably near impossible.

Well, I guess its alright then. Its not like they have any responsibility for the content hosted on their website, stamped with their logo, uploaded by their users.

Most people don't even bother removing the watermarks. And those who do don't fool anybody. It's terribly obvious which stuff users made, and what stuff they share from other places.

Yeah, just like its legal to pirate movies as long as you don't remove the title cards

I'm not arguing that it's right, but the issue seems to be that he wasn't getting credit. I'm pointing out that he pretty much is. I've streamed movies for you guys before. Did you think I made them?

You say that like the people/person who runs funnyjunk has any real control over whether or not the posters give credit.

You say that like the people/person who runs funnyjunk doesn't have absolute control over everything that goes on on their website.

I was just browsing and saw something from The Oatmeal. The pure volume of stuff posted makes it probably near impossible.

Well, I guess its alright then. Its not like they have any responsibility for the content hosted on their website, stamped with their logo, uploaded by their users.

Most people don't even bother removing the watermarks. And those who do don't fool anybody. It's terribly obvious which stuff users made, and what stuff they share from other places.

Yeah, just like its legal to pirate movies as long as you don't remove the title cards

I'm not arguing that it's right, but the issue seems to be that he wasn't getting credit. I'm pointing out that he pretty much is. I've streamed movies for you guys before. Did you think I made them?

 

no.

 

however.. the thing with internet stuff is that it's possible to enjoy reading a comic for years and not know where it came from.

 

all he wanted was some credit for HIS work.

 

like... what the hell is so unreasonable about that.

 

tell me. he doesn't demand to be paid, he was well within his rights to demand more.. if this was the big music industry.. FJ would have been shut down. :shock:

You say that like the people/person who runs funnyjunk has any real control over whether or not the posters give credit.

You say that like the people/person who runs funnyjunk doesn't have absolute control over everything that goes on on their website.

I was just browsing and saw something from The Oatmeal. The pure volume of stuff posted makes it probably near impossible.

Well, I guess its alright then. Its not like they have any responsibility for the content hosted on their website, stamped with their logo, uploaded by their users.

Most people don't even bother removing the watermarks. And those who do don't fool anybody. It's terribly obvious which stuff users made, and what stuff they share from other places.

Yeah, just like its legal to pirate movies as long as you don't remove the title cards

I'm not arguing that it's right, but the issue seems to be that he wasn't getting credit. I'm pointing out that he pretty much is. I've streamed movies for you guys before. Did you think I made them?

I didn't think that you were arguing that it was right. You were arguing that it wasn't funnyjunk's responsibility. And it is.

no.

 

however.. the thing with internet stuff is that it's possible to enjoy reading a comic for years and not know where it came from.

 

all he wanted was some credit for HIS work.

 

like... what the hell is so unreasonable about that.

 

tell me. he doesn't demand to be paid, he was well within his rights to demand more.. if this was the big music industry.. FJ would have been shut down. :shock:

Then you scroll down to comments and either someone is blasting the poster for not giving credit, someone already asked where it's from, or you can ask where it's from. And as I said, most people don't even bother to remove the watermark. Yeah he deserves credit, I just don't think he isn't getting it.

http://www.funnyjunk.com/channel/deficiency/Won+t+Come+Out/TMXsDGZ/

http://www.memecenter.com/fun/92919/literally

 

tell me which site posted this pic first and who really deserves credit.

FJ is wrong, Oatmeal is right. I don't really understand why you guys are debating this.

why does that suddenly make it ok? that people either leave his logo on there or that its in the comments? if he doesn't want his content stolen and hosted somewhere else, then he shouldn't have to suffer it. And its funnyjunk's responsibility to remove it. Why wouldn't it be? Its THEIR website. THEIR domain. THEY are the rulers of it. Don't tell me "its the users not the admins infringing copyright! Nothing can be done!" because its like saying "its the citizens, not the government that's murdering people! Nothing can be done!"

http://www.funnyjunk.com/channel/deficiency/Won+t+Come+Out/TMXsDGZ/

http://www.memecenter.com/fun/92919/literally

 

tell me which site posted this pic first and who really deserves credit.

It says memecenter uploaded it 3 months ago. So logically them. But considering it's made of a bunch of content I guarantee the maker didn't produce, it's kind of a bad example.

why does that suddenly make it ok? that people either leave his logo on there or that its in the comments? if he doesn't want his content stolen and hosted somewhere else, then he shouldn't have to suffer it. And its funnyjunk's responsibility to remove it. Why wouldn't it be? Its THEIR website. THEIR domain. THEY are the rulers of it. Don't tell me "its the users not the admins infringing copyright! Nothing can be done!" because its like saying "its the citizens, not the government that's murdering people! Nothing can be done!"

But he said he just wants credit and he doesn't care that it's on there if he gets it. At least that's what I'm getting from wits. And you can punish people for killing each other, but obviously they do it anyway. So by your analogy, any government that doesn't preside over a 0% crime rate should be shut down/replaced.

http://www.funnyjunk...me+Out/TMXsDGZ/

http://www.memecente...92919/literally

 

tell me which site posted this pic first and who really deserves credit.

It says memecenter uploaded it 3 months ago. So logically them. But considering it's made of a bunch of content I guarantee the maker didn't produce, it's kind of a bad example.

 

no its a good example.

 

you have no idea who was original creator.

 

and if you want to see more of this creator';s work.. you'[re screwed.

http://www.funnyjunk...me+Out/TMXsDGZ/

http://www.memecente...92919/literally

 

tell me which site posted this pic first and who really deserves credit.

It says memecenter uploaded it 3 months ago. So logically them. But considering it's made of a bunch of content I guarantee the maker didn't produce, it's kind of a bad example.

 

no its a good example.

 

you have no idea who was original creator.

 

and if you want to see more of this creator';s work.. you'[re screwed.

I'd argue that's the creators fault for not attributing their "name" to it. You wouldn't write a book, then publish it without your name on it if you wanted people to know you made it.

why does that suddenly make it ok? that people either leave his logo on there or that its in the comments? if he doesn't want his content stolen and hosted somewhere else, then he shouldn't have to suffer it. And its funnyjunk's responsibility to remove it. Why wouldn't it be? Its THEIR website. THEIR domain. THEY are the rulers of it. Don't tell me "its the users not the admins infringing copyright! Nothing can be done!" because its like saying "its the citizens, not the government that's murdering people! Nothing can be done!"

But he said he just wants credit and he doesn't care that it's on there if he gets it. At least that's what I'm getting from wits. And you can punish people for killing each other, but obviously they do it anyway. So by your analogy, any government that doesn't preside over a 0% crime rate should be shut down/replaced.

I'm not saying that any government without a 0% crime rate is a failure, just like a website isn't a failure just because they have a few pieces of stolen content. But I am saying that its the government/website's responsibility to do what they can about it.

why does that suddenly make it ok? that people either leave his logo on there or that its in the comments? if he doesn't want his content stolen and hosted somewhere else, then he shouldn't have to suffer it. And its funnyjunk's responsibility to remove it. Why wouldn't it be? Its THEIR website. THEIR domain. THEY are the rulers of it. Don't tell me "its the users not the admins infringing copyright! Nothing can be done!" because its like saying "its the citizens, not the government that's murdering people! Nothing can be done!"

But he said he just wants credit and he doesn't care that it's on there if he gets it. At least that's what I'm getting from wits. And you can punish people for killing each other, but obviously they do it anyway. So by your analogy, any government that doesn't preside over a 0% crime rate should be shut down/replaced.

I'm not saying that any government without a 0% crime rate is a failure, just like a website isn't a failure just because they have a few pieces of stolen content. But I am saying that its the government/website's responsibility to do what they can about it.

I don't disagree with that. Like I said, all I'm saying is that I think The Oatmeal gets credit. And if it's not given, it's easy to get.

earlier, it sounded like you were saying the admins weren't responsible because it was their users' doing

I was saying that one guy trying to screen the tsunami of content is ridiculous.

I was saying that one guy trying to screen the tsunami of content is ridiculous.

 

but the oatmeal guy emailed him the content that was missing attribution.

 

and FJ didn't do shit about it. <_<

if he can't screen the shit by himself he needs to hire more people. Just like the president needs to hire policemen

Most stuff gets posted multiple times, and in multiple forms. So by saying "I didn't get credit in comic 1, 4 &6." There could be 5 of each, and none of them with similar tags making them easy to locate and/or differentiate. So I think ,apart from being an [wagon], there's little that can be feasibly done, so that's why nothing was done.

that's absolutely untrue. how do you think youtube manages it?

I figured they rely on people flagging it. Funnyjunk has the option to, I just don't think people use it. You can lead a horse to water but you cant make it drink.

you've still got the attitude that "well funnyjunk can't really do anything about it" and that's totally untrue

Night.

 

I haven't read your guyzez arguments, but I'm pretty sure Psycho is probably right.

1. 4chan creates something.

2. It hits reddit and funnyjunk simultaneously.

3. Everything else.

1. 4chan creates something.

2. It hits reddit and funnyjunk simultaneously.

3. Everything else.

This tbh.

1. 4chan creates something.

2. It hits reddit and funnyjunk simultaneously.

3. Everything else.

This tbh.

 

And the ball gets rolling from there... not knowing when to stop.