If people are really sending Mike death threats and showing up at his workplace, please stop. That’s no way to go about this and you’re going to get yourselves in trouble.
- “From: Mike Jandreau <[redacted]@lycos-inc.com>
Date: February 2, 2007 11:04:24 AM
To: [redacted]@gawker.com
Subject: http://tinyurl.com/2ftcg6 violation of my privacy.
Hello,
As a retaliation for enforcing company policies, one of our users, has been slandering me across various message boards and blogs.
Now, I find that an unauthorized photograph of myself is posted on “consumerist.com”, violating my personal privacy.
I have had 81 death threats since last night, and 6 individuals have shown up at our corporate offices, looking to speak with me. All 6 of those individuals were asked to leave the premsises. [sic]
My photograph is located on: http://tinyurl.com/2ftcg6
I immediately request that this website and photograph be removed, as it is a violation of my privacy.
Under Federal Law, you must comply with this request.”
Dear Mike,
We’re sorry, no one here has any intentions of helping you with anything.
We are the manager of all of Customer Service. There is no one higher than us that you will speak with.
You violated our policy, which is, despite what you say, to not be a jerk to your customers.
Your image will be held hostage. After you apologize to Whitney and restore her emails, your image will be deleted.
P.S. The picture was gleaned from your site, MovieSnobs. You may want to cc your letter to Google Images as well. — BEN POPKEN
Previously: Lycos Deletes All Of Customer’s Email, Tells ‘Em To Suck It
(Original blog entry down to CPU overload, here’s a Google cache).
More From Consumerist
-
This Target Cashier Missed The ‘No Homophobic Insults At Checkout’ Part Of Training
-
Give Ford Dealership Bad Survey Rating, Get Told ‘You Are No Longer Welcome Here’
-
Zombie Bank Of America Account Makes Me A ‘Delinquent’
-
Nikon Fixes One Problem With My Camera, May Have Caused Another
-
Just Because Sports Authority Says It’s Having A “Sale,” That Doesn’t Make It True
6 ppl showed up in real world and threatened the doofus? Yeah riiiiite. Like someone’s gonna brave the gridlocked, cell-driver-obstacle-path, smog-infused artery of stress that we call CA 580. For him. Ha!
It always amuses me. Someone (Lycos in this case, let’s not forget) makes a boo-boo. Might even be right, but doesn’t extend the golden hand of supurb customer service. It gets a LOT of attention. Company – rather than trotting off some intern to fix the thing in 3 minutes then use the incident to highlight their war-room of customer lovin’ to the world – blames the victim then erects a wall surrounded by a moat of bile and laughable legal demands.
Fix problem the first way: 5 posts max, all positive.
“Fix” problem the other way: 250 posts, all entertaining (unfortunately at the expense of the company.
Ouch!!
PS: Mike, your taste in film? SUCKS! 9-year-old Nebraska boys like better movies.
John Stracke: “Just publishing something, even online, doesn’t put it into the public domain.”
I don’t follow. The guy placed his photograph into a forum where any one of the 2 billion internet users planet-wide could access it. I would argue that he absolutely did put it in the public domain. And since he never took any affirmative steps to protect the work, how can he now claim that it is protected by copyright?
Look at http://www.worth1000.com for instance. That site specifically provides that all of the works thereon are protected by copyright and that nobody is permitted to use them without the express permission of the copyright owner.
Our hero never did that. He put his photo online, without protection, in the hopes that others would see it.
In any event, what about the media’s protection for fair reporting? Even assuming that this photograph was copyrighted, isn’t the fair reporting privilege going to trump his alleged copyright? Isn’t this the chance you take any time you publich your photo online?
@bluegus:
Whoever has the rights to the photograph, it’s not necessary, for the purposes of copyright, for one to affirmatively “seek” protection. By creating his “work” and putting it in a “fixed medium,” all of which has happened here, the work is protected.
Now, to what extent it’s protected, that’s another story.
To that end, I propose an update to 17 U.S.C. sec. 107 making it fair use, always, to reproduce photographs of complete douches.
bluegus32– because actual copyright law / regs say so:
http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html
——-
When is my work protected?
Your work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.
Do I have to register with your office to be protected?
No. In general, registration is voluntary. Copyright exists from the moment the work is created. You will have to register, however, if you wish to bring a lawsuit for infringement of a U.S. work. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section “Copyright Registration.”
———–
That’s why.
Okay, the above response to Mike is freaking hilarious. Props to Consumerist. So, according to Mike, it’s just fine to be a jackass (even with a valid point), but it’s not okay for others to treat you like the jerk you’ve proven yourself to be?
Mike could do a lot more to manage critics by just apologizing to the original customer for his mistake (not for enforcing the company email policy, but for the tremendously disrespectful, dismissive way that he communicated with the customer), rather than threatening Consumerist with legal action. A bully is a bully, no matter what rules they try to hide behind.
Wow, if this guy is the head of customer relations for Lycos, that other CSRs look to as an example, I can see why the company ranks about a gazillion spots below its competitors.
As another poster has said… what a tool. And yes, take off that Boston cap. The Red Sox deserve better.
See, this is why Consumerist is such an awesome website.
As for the death threats and people showing up at his offices, that has to be total and utter BS. Nobody cares THAT much about him. I dare him to post some of those emails here…
Bluegus. Is it possible you are using the term ‘public domain’ when you mean something else?
Something is in the public domain when no person can establish proprietary interests within a particular jurisdiction. It’s importnat to note that the specific term ‘public domain’ has a precise meaning that only partially corresponds to the spoken English meanings of the individual words (this is common in legal language– just because the words have one meaning in English does not mean that those words have the same meaning when codified).
In this case it is probably safe to assume that this Mike fella actually owns the copyright for that image. In fact, I think that it is a reasonable assumption that a person who publishes a picture of themselves on their own website owns the rights to that image.
However, Fair Use may apply in this case, as explored in previous comments.
Kornkob: Very possible I’m mis-using the term. Or more to the point, that term has become antiquated in this new-age internet environment.
One of the very real truths of today’s internet environment is that Congress has been unable to keep up with the real world. For instance, anyone who’s tracked porn legislation and case law over the last decade can tell you that “law” and “the internet” are largely exclusive of each other. Applying old legal concepts to the internet has proven very difficult and people/companies have to now go through tremendous effort to protect themselves in this global community.
There is a large body of people that believes that once someone posts something like this on the internet, it loses its protection in large part because of the person’s own failures to protect the work. Many people, myself included, feel that once one guy posts his photo on a public website, without seeking to protect it, that he forfeits the right to later claim that it is somehow legally protected.
One of the basic maxims of jurisprudence provides that “The law helps the vigilant, before those who sleep on their rights.” (Cal.Civ.Code § 3527.)
The guy invited this upon himself. In addition to fair use and fair reporting arguments, we probably have a huge issue here of implied consent or waiver of rights.
antediluvian: Yes, by its bare definition, the photograph is copyrighted. But there are so many defenses to its use as to make the copyright protection nearly non-existent.
So, while my analysis may have been technically inefficient, the end result is the same.
Keep in mind that there is a huge difference between having something technically protected under the law and actually enforcing those rights.
Is this guy’s picture “technically” protected by copyright? Sure. Is it “practically” protected. Probably not.
To accuse someone in writing of slander when it is not (as in this case) is, in itself, a libel.
I can just about buy the idea that it’s OK to delete someone’s e-mail after a mere 30 days of inactivity. (Do they at least send a warning to a backup e-mail address?)
But even accepting the policy as reasonable, I don’t buy that this Jandreau guy should have been such a total dick about it. Assuming it’s true that “no amount of money can now restore them”, he could at least have seemed apologetic about it. Something like…
“I’m sorry to inform you that your e-mail has been deleted and cannot be recovered. Lycos policy clearly states that accounts will be deleted after 30 days of inactivity. Your account was inactive for 30 days, and hence your e-mail was deleted. I am unable to help you further, and I’m afraid that escalating your complaint will not result in your mail being restored. However, if you wish to comment on Lycos policy, please contact “
Ha ha. You said ‘emails’, like a hick.
Image of Uurp Uurp says:
He reminds me of one of the Cabbage Patch Kids, but I can’t remember which. I just want to give him a great big hug!
You know, he DOES kinda look like one of the Cabbage Patch Kids dolls.
Bonus: This image now qualifies as a new copyright as under fair use, I am allowed to create derivative works. I extend the copyright to anyone who wants to use this image for any reason whatsoever. It’s yours. Have at it.
“Assuming it’s true that “no amount of money can now restore them”, he could at least have seemed apologetic about it. Something like…”
You have to put that quote in context. First Lycos offered to restore the emails if she upgraded to a $19.95 account. When she balked at having to pay to get access to to her emails on her free email account MJ taunted her by saying, essentially, that they had been vindictively deleted and that now not even money could restore her emails.
Lycos’ current 30 inactivity policy is only tangental to this customer-service-gone-wrong story. It is really a story about an a55hat too arrogant to believe that his vindictive actions could ever have any karmic consequences–that and he’s dumb enough to put his vindictiveness into an email. What a dufus.
This one bad customer service story may well push what remains of Lycos (who knew they still existed?) over the edge. If Lycos were smart, they’d feed MJ to the lions–figuratively speaking–while they still have a chance.
He looks like Sean Murray – you know, McGee on NCIS.
The copyright issue is probably moot too, as it is by all appearances a work computer and any photographs taken with it would be considered a work-for-hire and therefore the copyright would lie with his employer. Somehow, I would be surprised if they even dare to show their face, much less comment.
I have no problem believing that he received 81 death threats and six office visits. I just don’t think it’s fair to attribute all of them to the email incident, because I am equally sure it’s not the first time Mike has committed such astounding douchebaggery in the name of “customer service.”
I am the manager of all of Customer Service. There is no one higher than me that you will speak with.
Poor form, Mike! Once you told her she had nothing left to do, you also told her she had nothing left to lose by taking the exchange public. And now you’re the one suffering the adverse consequences.
Welcome to Karma, population you.
Ha! So now the shoe is on the other hand!
I don’t know about the legality of the photograph, but I’m sure Gawker would be happy to take it down if they had that pesky password to their image server.
Oops….you know, come to think of it, I think that password was in an e-mail that was sent to a Lycos e-mail account, but alas, the e-mail has been deleted forever!
I’m still with the folks that don’t think Lycos did anything wrong except hire a snotty-arsed customer service representative who’s just too full of himself.
Oh, and Lycos…I’ve had a free Yahoo mail account since 1998 and they’ve never decided to delete all of my mail.
Normally, I’d give a home-boy a break because he’s wearing a RedSox hat, but not in this case.
Hey Mike, hope you don’t get canned over this because you wouldn’t make it as a lawyer. Stop using pseudo insults and we will stop laughing at you.
Start treating people like they were in front of you when doing CS and maybe you wouldn’t be considered such a waste of space and a drain on humanity. And even better, we might think the large companies want our business and not need it like Lycos.
What Mike would write if he were actually being slandered:
“This is concerning a certain blog post that’s been circulated that makes untrue statements about me and falsly attributes quotes to me that I’d like removed. I can forward the actual correspondences to you if you’d like to review them. I take my job seriously and would never treat someone in the way portrayed on this blog and I’d like to clear my name with the facts…” etc
What Mike actually said: (paraphrase) “Waaaa! Slander! Unauthorized use! Everybody is out to get me when I was just enforcing, and I demand everybody cease and desist RIGHT NOW! Stop it! No one is higher than me!”
What Mike should say if he has half a ball in his sac: “This is certainly an embarrassing situation I find myself in, but I have only myself to blame. In my defense, this was a bad day for me, but I shouldn’t said what I said in the way I said it. I am sending an apology to the customer in question, and I humbly ask that you remove my photo because this whole situation makes me kind of paranoid.”
You reading this Mike? Just tack the above up in your cubicle and put a big “no” with an arrow to what you actually said.
That’s what you get for being such a PUSSY and treating a women like that. Go home and play with your “Magic the Gathering” Collection or your Star Wars figures. You are a LOSER and deserve to be harrased.
I think it’d be great if everyone with gmail used his photo as their g-chat icon.
“In fact, I think that it is a reasonable assumption that a person who publishes a picture of themselves on their own website owns the rights to that image.”
Often not — because most people do not take pictures of themselves. They get a friend to do it. So TECHNICALLY the copyright in the snapshot belongs to the friend who took the picture.
Now us average folks on the street don’t go suing our neighbors when we take snap their family Christmas picture for them and they send it out on 600 Christmas cards when the copyright is OURS!!!!! But try convincing a wedding photographer you should be able to reproduce photos of yourself you already paid $6,000 for. Then you’ll learn who owns the copyright, and it AIN’T THE FOLKS IN THE PICTURE.
test