When I decided to take a chance and call lawyer Charles Carreon on Friday afternoon, I wasn't expecting much of anything. Considering that the man has been
under attack from large portion of the internet, I figured that no one would even pick up the phone (and if someone did, I would get a simple "no comment.").
Imagine my surprise, however, when Mr. Carreon actually did pick up the phone, answered my questions, and gave a very detailed analysis on why he feels he's on the right side of
the disagreement between
FunnyJunk.com and
The Oatmeal.
For any of you who are unfamiliar with this controversy (and not currently seeking treatment for back injuries caused by the giant rock under which you have been residing), legal humor site PopeHat.com has an excellent three part series to help get you up to speed:
Part I,
Part II,
Part III.
Otherwise, onto one of the most unexpected interviews of all time. Carreon's words appear in blue and everything is sic'd (including my own writing; my wife/editor is not here to nag me about my multiple typos).
My first question for Mr. Carreon was about his attempt to
shut down the The Oatmel's fundraiser. I didn't understand why he wouldn't instead just say that raising money for cancer and wildlife preservation was great, but it did not affect the damages that were owed to his client. The move seemed to cause more bad PR for himself and FunnyJunk rather than help his case.
Carreon replied that under California law, you must be properly registered to conduct a fundraiser, something he is certain that Mathew Inman (operator of The Oatmeal) and
IndieGoGo (the crowdfunding site being used The Oatmeal) are not.
"You might think of it as the 'Pseudo Santa' law," he explained. "Anybody can get a Santa suit. Then around Christmas time, you can probably make pretty good money wearing one outside of Macy's, ringing a bell, and saying you'll give the money to the Salvation Army. But you can't do that."
Carreon went on to say that he had been in contact with the American Cancer Society and the National Wildlife Federation and confirmed that Indiegogo had not executed the proper fundraiser paperwork. He explained that this missing documentation gives a sponsoring organization the power to shut down a campaign that may bring a charity itself into disrepute or injure its goodwill...or might be
"using a charity as a human shield for a slander campaign inciting people to cyber vandalism," Carreon added.
While he didn't specifically mention Inman in his comment on cyber vandalism, he had
directly accused him of instigating such attacks on his website. I asked him to confirm if he thought Matthew Inman was behind some of the recent trouble he had experienced:
"What he [Inman] has done...I am not entirely certain of the scope of it. I don't know if you're familiar with his cartooning--people having their heads thrown in a chipper, his character of a pterodactyl consuming blended brains with gusto--I've actually never seen anyone incite people to violence in that fashion."
"I don't actually expect anyone to show up at my house with a weapon. But I think that when you insult someone by saying that their mother engages in bestiality, that is the first step in dehumanizing a person."
"It might not have seemed very dehumanizing when Walt Disney made Japanese people look silly with buck teeth and big glasses who could not pronounce their 'R's or their 'L's. But it was dehumanizing, and the purpose was to direct evil intentions against them, which ultimately resulted in the only nuclear holocaust that ever occurred in the history of humanity. I don't think Truman would have ever done that if we hadn't so dehumanized the enemy."
"When you dehumanize someone, that is the first step to inciting people. The emails that I've gotten...many of them wish me death or wish for the complete collapse of my law practice...and they are virtually all uninformed."
"They say I filed a lawsuit. I haven't filed a lawsuit. They apparently wouldn't know a lawsuit if they saw it. But they are willing to join the internet lynch mob and engage in cyber vandalism."
Carreon then detailed a few of the incidents that he has had to deal with this week.
His website was hacked and the password taken (which he was able to recover before any damage could be done). Someone also created a twitter account posing as him, which Carreon claimed constituted trademark infringement (due to his name being trademarked).
What really seemed to make Carreon angry about the twitter impostor, however, was the fact that he/she was being offensive, rude, and calling people names.
"They used that twitter feed to make a bunch of offensive statements that I would never make," he explained. "I don't call people dumbass, idiot, that sort of thing."
"Matt Inman was right there to egg them on when that occurred; he said 'This is like a man with his dick in a hornets' nest throwing his balls in it.'"
After mentioning Inman, Carreon speculated about his possible involvement in the false twitter account:
"I don't know if that's coincidence. Why was he on twitter at the same time the impersonator was? I don't know."
He went on to state that his email address was falsely registered for various websites, including some that were pornographic. Carreon firmly believes that this string of attacks was the work of Matthew Inman.
"I think that's cyber vandalism. I think he [Inman] incited it knowingly and intentionally."
I then moved onto the fact that FunnyJunk.com had posted Matt Inman's work without his consent or attribution. Carreon, however, stood his ground on why he felt his client had acted appropriately and Inman had not.
"Nobody can be accused of willful, felonious copyright infringement who has done nothing but operate a website in which user content is uploaded and they have not received DMCA notice. Inman never sent one DMCA notice. But he complained again in his usual bitching and moaning over the internet manner, so my client removed everything he could find."
"When I wrote the letter, I was unaware of any other Oatmeal comics being there. Inman apparently was. He could have notified us of this in a DMCA notice a long time ago. But he chose not to. He chose to do the same thing he's done before, because he is a clever web user of the mob."
For anyone that is hoping for Matt Inman to counter sue FunnyJunk.com (myself included), Carreon had this to say:
"Matt's done a great job spinning it, but he's not going to sue FunnyJunk. He couldn't sue FunnyJunk. He couldn't even counter sue FunnyJunk for copyright infringement if we sue him because he hasn't registered the copyrights on any of those domains. Even if he did an expedited registration...he would get no per incident damages because the "infringement" occurred before the registration. He's got nothing."
"FunnyJunk is not suing him. FunnyJunk didn't sue him. So what are people bitching about?"
I replied that asking for $20,000 in damages seemed not only outrageous, but nearly impossible to prove. He replied that it did not need to be proven in hard damages; an expert on the witness stand could point out that advertisers would shy away from doing with business with FunnyJunk due to The Oatmeal's claims of copyright infringement.
I then asked him if he knew of any specific incidents of an advertiser not doing business with FunnyJunk due to statements made by The Oatmeal.
"You got people voting with their feet and trampling to get out of there," he replied. "What do you think that does to your user base? What do you think that does to your advertising money?"
"When you accuse someone of a crime, that's called defamation per se, and that means that no damages have to even be proven. Damages are presumed if you accuse someone of a crime or misconduct that reflects poorly upon their business and profession."
"Now he [Inman] accused FunnyJunk of willful copyright infringement, which is criminal. That was in my letter, but apparently no one reads the letter; they just read the little funny words written around it. The bottom line is that he accused FunnyJunk of a crime that FunnyJunk did not commit. Under those circumstances, the demand for $20,000 is perfectly common place."
If there was still any doubt about Carreon's resolve to weather the storm and see this case through, it was quashed it when he concluded with the following statement:
"That fact that he [Inman] wants to react by advocating net war against me and accusing my mom of bestiality makes him lower than the low. If people want to side with him, they better check their motivations, because I am the kind of person that that defends people from that kind of person."
"Anyone who thinks it's going to wreck my career because I stood behind my client, stand behind myself, and point at the wrong doer as a bully...they have absolutely no understanding of what makes a lawyer. They apparently think that a lawyer is a person who cowers, apologizes, and stands in a corner...That is not what makes a lawyer. That's a politician...that's your ordinary plebe that doesn't have any fight, doesn't have any skill, and wouldn't know how to find a legal weapon if they needed it."
"I'm fine. Am I angry? Yeah...but I keep my cool, and I keep working."
After his concluding statement (which I would have found very inspiring if I agreed with the side he represented), he apologized if he seemed rude at all (he didn't), we discussed the stupid name of my website, and I was left wondering how someone that seemed so smart, passionate, and strongly desiring to do the right could be fighting on what most people (myself included) see as the wrong side in an internet proxy war of good vs. evil.
Perhaps I should have asked more questions, but I wanted to hear Carreon out and give him the chance to say more than had been revealed in prior interviews...and he did not disappoint (and I'm probably a terrible interviewer, but whatever).
I'll close with three thoughts:
1. It's much harder for me to personify Charles Carreon as a force of evil after speaking with him. I truly believe he thinks that he's doing the right thing (along with the fact he was able to make some surprisingly good points). This brings me to my next point:
2. He may be certain that Matthew Inman coordinated attacks against him and his website, but I'm just as convinced that he did not. Inman took the time to mark out Carreon's contact info on
his response letter and has not made one public call for any sort of retribution. For someone that seems to be very intent following the law to the letter, Carreon should cite better possible evidence for his theories of intentional harm than "he was on twitter at the same time as an impostor was."
3. I'm still firmly in The Oatmeal's camp on this one, but Carreon is much smarter, tougher, and determined than I gave him credit for.
He finished our phone conversation by informing me that he should have an even more detailed public statement on this matter sometime over the weekend. Grab your popcorn, ladies and gentlemen.
Please feel free to leave a comment below. If you'd like to sing my praises or tell me how much I suck more personally, I can also be found on Twitter.
Comments
then
"Due to security attacks instigated by Matt Inman, this function has been temporarily disabled."
He has just accused himself of libel or slander (I forgot which one is written and which one is spoken). He may seem passionate and strong, but he's also a very bad lawyer for perpetrating exactly the same offense on someone that he is accusing them of doing.
And if funnyjunk allows user-uploaded content, then its bad?
I don't think Oatmeal is funny or clever at all, and is really about monetizing the lower end of the bell curve, so I'm not invested in taking sides here.
It does seem inconsistent to support user-uploaded in one context and not in another. Its not a simple issue.
On the other hand, I don't like bullies and what Inman has done with the comics and stuff has removed any moral highground he had and some form of justice is needed about that.
wondered why California law would be relevant. Turns out Indiegogo is in California.
The bear loving mother depicted by Oatmeal is supposed to be FJ's mother. That was confirmed by Inman on twitter and should be clear from the context of (that section of) Oatmeal's reply (Carreon doesn't host comics, FJ does).
"When you dehumanize someone, that is the first step to inciting people."
Interestingly, people seem to be focussing on Carreon, a person, rather than on FunnyJunk the non-human (note: not inhuman) company/website. Seems it could be argued that FJ dehumanized itself by letting Carreon do all the writing and talking.
"It might not have seemed very dehumanizing when Walt Disney made Japanese people look silly[..] which ultimately resulted in the only nuclear holocaust that ever occurred"
Did he just Godwin the discussion?
"When I wrote the letter, I was unaware of any other Oatmeal comics being there. Inman apparently was. He could have notified us of this in a DMCA notice a long time ago. But he chose not to."
Inman wasn't required to. Carreon apparently investigated the Oatmeal enough to know about wood-chippers and pterodactyls, but seems to have neglected to see if there was anything to the issue of any of FJs hosted material infringing on the copyright of the Oatmeal's comics. Which is fair enough; Carreon isn't the Oatmeal's lawyer.
"Matt Inman was right there to egg them on when that occurred; he said 'This is like a man with his dick in a hornets' nest throwing his balls in it.'"
So Carreon does read Oatmeal's twitter, but not carefully enough to pick up on the bear loving clarification. Also, the hornets nest comment follows Inman's tweet of Carreon's message and it was not tweeted directly to any twitter account (let alone to the fake Carreon twitter account) or in reply to anything from the fake Carreon twitter account.
I don't have a twitter account, but I expect that you'd have jump through some hoops to actually use multiple twitter accounts at the same time, which might be more annoying than it's worth. (constantly logging out and in, different browsers, different devices, installing applications designed for it)
"FunnyJunk is not suing him. FunnyJunk didn't sue him. So what are people bitching about?"
Obviously, Carreon's letter states that suing Oatmeal is an option. Carreon was apparently careful enough to not actually say that that would be the course of action they'd take if Oatmeal didn't comply with the demands.
I guess it's clear enough without most of the links.
One clarification: "Carreon's message" refers to the "Due to security attacks instigated by [...]" one.
I agree with you that he is not a "force of evil" although I sense a high degree of narcissism and abusiveness from his comments. Namely, that he sees outright attacks and hostility in the slightest of comments or actions towards him (or his client) and conversely has no capacity to see the same tendencies in his own behaviour.
I am firmly in the Oatmeal's camp on this dispute although Inman would have done himself a favour by leaving the bestiality cartoon out of the conversation and truly taken the high road. I don't think he's altered his legal claim on the situation but it was in bad taste.
Time will tell, but I'll bet he's likely destroyed whatever was left of FunnyJunk's advertising clout, which is rather ironic since losing ad revenue seems to have been the cause of FunnyJunk retaining Carreon in the first place. Are these the actions of a person who claims to be fighting for their client's best interests?
3. Carreon is much smarter, tougher, and determined than I gave him credit for."
Ignoring Inman or Carreon, I hope you have learned your lesson.
1 & 3 are the lessons that 99.9999% of the net needs to learn. The people you disagree with are probably as smart if not smarter than you. It does you no good to treat them like idiots, or declare them to be idiots, or declare them to be brainwashed or whatever. It weakens your arguments and makes you look like an arrogant jackass.
Carreon is a humorless putz who apparently channels Leonard Crabs. He couldn't make himself more ridiculous if he started wearing a clown costume 24/7.
Hitler, too, thought he was doing the right thing.
Carreon is suffering from the most transparent case of not being able to admit he was wrong.
To characterise puerile humour as accusing someone's mother of bestiality is just stupid. It shows what has been apparent for a long time: the guys at funnyjunk don't actually have a sense of humour.
Oatmeal's lawyer wrote: "FunnyJunk does not appear to have a notice of designation on file with the Copyright Office."
CC has just tweeted a picture of filing paperwork (and payment, dated 25th of May, 2012).
So there appears to be quite a delay in updating those notices of designation at the Copyright Office, or something else is going on with that paperwork.
I wonder how those designated agents fit into the DMCA notice process, because 25th of May is not that long ago.
According to 17 USC § 512(c)(2), safe harbor protections "apply to a service provider only if the service provider has designated an agent to receive notifications of claimed infringement"...
... HOWEVER, FunnyJunk LLC. need to provide these details "by making available through its service, including on its website in a location accessible to the public". They need to provide at least "the name, address, phone number, and electronic mail address of the agent".
And I'm sorry, but the webform at http://www.funnyjunk.com/copyright/ doesn't do this.
There are countless people who would be willing to testify that they didn't satisfy this requirement (and still do not).
This entire scenario just makes me sad.
> I expect that you'd have jump
> through some hoops to actually use
> multiple twitter accounts at the
> same time, which might be more
> annoying than it's worth. (constantly
> logging out and in, different
> browsers, different devices,
> installing applications designed for it)
Yep, you described that pretty accurately. I have multiple Twitter accounts for various blogs I don't want to spam my friends with (unless they want to read those blogs), and I eventually gave up and just ran those accounts through TwitterFeed, cos it is a HUGE p.i.t.a. to constantly log out, then log in under a different Twitter name.... I can't imagine how much spare time to waste I'd need so that I can have convos between Twitter accounts --and I imagine that Mr. Inman is at least a little bit busier than I am.
I, personally, am not convinced that Charles Carreon is "smarter than he seems", cos honestly? If a lawyer worth his salt and claiming to be as well-versed in Internet copyright law and Carreon claims he himself is, then he wouldn't have touched funnyjonk's claim of immunity with a ten-foot stick, much less any attempts to extort money out of The Oatmeal over a flimsy (at best) allegation of defamation that is so full of holes in not only layman, but legal logic that it'd be laughed out of court.
Carreon isn't "smart", he's a well-read narcissist and a bully.
Not that I believe Inman is doing this. But it's not actually impossible or even difficult to maintain multiple accounts.
Charles Carreon was wrong about the copyright/allegations of criminal conduct claims (see Chris Sherlock's great analysis above). There's been no defamation suit for good reason. It would be thrown out and OATMEAL could win an ANTI-SLAP counterclaim.
All of Charles Carreon's comments about the satire of Oatmeal's work are just deflection and anger. No legal recourse is available. First Amendment and ANTI-SLAP prevent Oatmeal or anyone else from being sued for words.
OATMEAL now has a claim against Correon for claiming OATMEAL took his trademark twitter name, especially since this will be IMPOSSIBLE to prove even if Oatmeal did it. Too funny since he'll never sue.
There may be validity to the fundraising lawsuit. Nobody commented about that.
It seems to be the case for Mr Carreon.
Ergo, idiots can be smart, but still be idiots.
And determined smart idiots are very dangerous.
If you are asking the internet at large, then the answer is obviously both "yes", "no", and "TITS OR GTFO".
FunnyJunk isn't registered with the DMCA (which is required to claim "safe harbor" immunity).
So, while they can (and probably do) ignore DMCA notices, they also don't have the legal right to use the "safe harbor" defense in court.
Libel = written
Slander = Verbal.
Both have to be proven, and both require proof that there has been a negative impact financially.
Another note is that the accused must have KNOWN the information said or printed to be false. In order to be in any legal hot water. The Oatmeal couldn't have known.
End game.
He didn't demand money or damages, just the credit for his work. Is that unreasonable?
I believe you are right.
In fact if Mr. Carreon, wrote anything at all that he knew to be false - he's actually the one that could end up in potentially big trouble.
He may attempt to go after "The Oatmeal" claiming that the amount earned on advertising is wrong (which I think I read somewhere) - but - there is no way that "The Oatmeal" would know that was false. In fact it is possible to get that large of a paycheck though ads. So possibility makes it an acceptable thing to assume.
Knowing something is false is the key here.(Otherwise everyone in highschool that ever unknowingly repeated a rumor would have been sued for slander. Think about that mess!)
If I'm FunnyJunk, I'm dropping my own clain, firing him; and distancing myself in every way from the guy suing the American Wildlife Foundation and American Cancer Society. If Carreon's assertions are correct, and FunnyJunk's advertisers were voting with their feet over a supposition by Inman over the legality of FunnyJunks M.O., they are in full blown 'get outta town' panic mode with any connection to a guy suing two CHARITIES. Proud of himself and contemptuous of others, attempting to coerce compliance through fear (of the law in his case); the only bully here is Carreon.
http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/funnyjunk-attorney-charles-h-carreon-is-a-tool-extortion-lawyer/
http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/funnyjunk-attorney-lawyer-charles-h-carreon-contact-information/
http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/funnyjunk-attorney-lawyer-charles-h-carreon-state-bar-suspension-record/
There was a similar situation about six months ago, famously noted as the "Ocean Marketing" incident. Penny Arcade released a post on its website about Paul Christoforo.
The internet stormed in with similar reactions toward Christoforo as they have recently with Carreon. Christoforo sent Penny Arcade an email with the following-
“You have the power Mike Please make it stop”
To quote Mike of Penny Arcade, however,
"The reality is that once I had posted the emails I didn’t have the power anymore. The Internet had it now and nothing I said or did was going to change that."
I don't feel Inman is resonsible for any of this. There was an angry post, much like with Penny Arcade. But because the internet seems to have a mind of its own, the internet's reaction to this recent event is nothing The Oatmeal could control. Once the post was up, there was nothing he could do.
These are all on websites operated by Carreon and his wife:
http://www.naderlibrary.com/mondocannibafeast2.htm
http://www.naderlibrary.com/mondo.sceptre.htm
http://www.american-buddha.com/mondo.kathleenturner.htm
http://www.american-buddha.com/mondo.shriyantraupyourass.htm
http://www.american-buddha.com/mondo.anncoulter.htm
Carreon knows that this complaint is superfluous for above reasons, but he sure fooled you.
We should sue you as a Doe to see which of Carreon's friends you are. Apparently that's what the legal system is for.
Slander = Spoken
Both = Defamation