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
God Bless America.
Hmm… I’m wondering what “Federal Law” he is referring to. Silly of him to bluff an assertion of “Federal Privacy Law” to a blog that is so well versed in a consumer’s legal rights.
That and the number of lawyers that frequent this blog as well.
Silly, silly.
in ONE day…81 death threats and 6 folks showed up?
someone thinks highly of themself.
I sense an exaggeration in numbers here.
I know this has nothing to do with Lycos, but Mike J is more of a movie idiot than MovieSnob.
Did you see his list of favorites???
Its like he was forced to watch Andy Griffith all his life and those were the first movies he saw…
Anything would be your favorite after seeing Aunt Bea for 20 years straight before buying a ticket for your first movie!!!
I immediately request that Consumerist take down his photo because it’s giving me the creeps.
Far too many people’s legal knowledge stems from the mistaken assumption that if it sounds like it should be a law then it is or since ‘everybody knows’ that something is illegal then, of course, it is. Then they pretty up the phrasology and, presto, they think they have a cast iron case. IANAL but I know enough about law to know that there’s little about the law that ‘everybody knows’ (even lawyers) and that things that sound like they should be laws usually aren’t.
Of course, you never mentioned that he claims ‘slander’ in this instance when I believe that a statement cannot be defamatory (and I think that this would be liable anyway since it is not spoken but in print) if the statement is merely a description of factual events.
On another note:
I submit that the Consumerist should create a brand new award to give out: The Golden Douchebag. Issued to tools like this fella for exhibiting, well, douche-like behavior in public.
Or at least get rid of the Red Sox cap, we want nothing to do with him!
This made my morning, thanks guys!
I always thought lycos was in a basement – not a building.
DId you check out his favorite movies? – this could be the making of a serial maniac
All you need to know about this turd’s ego:
TopFive Favorite Movies:
Braveheart
The Crow
Boondock Saints
High Fidelity
Running Scared
The Prestige
(I can have six, because I said so.)
under Federal Law, of course.
I say we give this photo to the guys at fark or worth1000 and let them photshop the everloving snot out of it.
Eighty-one death threats? Please.
Very considerate of him to put the link into a tinyurl, though.
And I agree with my eclectic namesake on the issue of the embarrassing Red Sox cap. Thanks a lot, Mike. As if Red Sox fans needed even more of a bad name.
He does have the right to demand you pull down the picture. Think copyright law. Think “DMCA takedown notice”.
Obviously, death threats are caused by seeing a person’s face on Consumerist, and they immediately cease when we can could no longer see what the person looks like.
Er … “can could” is evidently my new way of saying “I really ought to proofread my comments.”
Well, looking at the picture does make me want to punch him in the face. I’m not sure about killing him, though.
You’d think a guy working for a dot-com would know the risks of being pwn3d on the intarwebs, but apparently not. Reactions like his only ever make things worse.
I used to be involved with running a local politically-oriented web forum. I got all kinds of interesting threats from people who claimed to know the law. These people were profoundly wrong, yet they clearly believed wholeheartedly in the crap they were spewing. Often they believed that it was illegal to post certain things because they were “offensive.” I sometimes had to wonder if they had ever seen the internets before. Heh… In any case, despite repeated threats of being dragged into court and/or arrested, nothing ever happened.
Well, sure, he can demand anything. In fact, I like this idea. I DEMAND ALL CONSUMERIST READERS GET FREE TACOS!
I like this idea…I can see why the RIAA loves it so much!
I like the Boondock Saints…. >_>;
I’d also have to agree with John, I don’t know of any federal law preventing you from posting his picture, but the DMCA can be applied to anything for any purpose (just ask the RIAA/MPAA), so he may have you there!
My lovely 2nd-year law student wife says she’s fairly sure that if he put the picture out there on the Internet, it’s fair game.
And this:
I have had 81 death threats since last night
…I don’t believe for a second.
This guy is a tool. Good luck getting that apology. Deserving though it may be, chances are slim with someone like this.
Did he cc the letter to legal@weddingdepot.com?
If he doesn’t apologize, maybe we should swap the Walmart Nazi shirt watch with Jerk Watch, continually posting this picture.
Privacy-wise, sure; but the picture is still subject to copyright.
Nice acambras!
I love the Golden DoucheBag award idea!
John Stracke:
It would be an interesting argument, since the picture is technically copyright of MJ (or whoever snapped the picture), however reusing the picture in the context of the consumerist’s point could be “fair use”
I’m not a lawyer, but I play one on Phoenix Wright.
lovely random-ass legal threat there. Ooooooh, big scary Federal Law. Capitalized, even.
If your federal law threat isn’t in the format 23 CFR 1543.212, nobody gives a shit.
Ok so death threats and people showing up at his office….I cant imagine anyone not personally involved would care that much. And I secont the Tool remark, he is a total asshat.
My two cents:
I’m curious to know what “federal law” he is referring to. He is talking about an invasion of a privacy right by another private citizen. That is more than likely going to be a state tort claim, not a federal claim. So let’s look st state laws.
As my expertise is in California law, let’s pretend he’s in California (privacy laws are going to be somewhat uniform across the jurisdictions so this should still be fairly applicable.)
There are a handful of actionable privacy rights. First, there’s “intrusion into private affairs.” As with many of the other privacy torts, this guy must have had a reasonable expectation of privacy that was unreasonably invaded. (CACI 1800.) Since the image that forms the basis of his privacy claim was one that was obtained through a website where he, himself, posted the image, it’s rather a far stretch to say that he had a reasonable expectation in its privacy. He put it out there, it’s his own damn fault for it staying out there.
Then we have “public disclosure of private facts.” (CACI 1801.) Once again, though, this picture was never private. He made it available to the public. So that’s not going to work.
“Appropriation or use of name or likeness” (CACI 1803, 1804) won’t work as that requires the Consumerist to use his name or likeness for financial gain. As his ugly mug ain’t worth shit to anyone but himself, this isn’t going to fly.
This is but a primer into California privacy rights but you can see where I’m going with this. The guy is full of crap.
So what about copyright? Copyright protection is preempted by federal law and is therefore usually going to be a federal claim. (I say “usually” because there are certain exceptions that could bring such a claim into state court, but I doubt they apply here.) But again, this dweeb never sought to protect his “creative work” nor did he ever seek to protect his likeness. He posted it himself on the internet making it fair game for anyone to use.
Sorry, pal, you’re shit out of luck. Before you start making legal threats that hold no merit, maybe you should ask your beloved Lycos to sic one of their lawyers on the Consumerist. Or did you already do that?
Hmmmmmm, maybe instead you should take a lesson from this and stop being an ass-hat. You got what you deserved, you ass-wipe.
Or is that too harsh?
Just make it the Golden Douche award (a la South Park’s Biggest Douche in the Universe award, won by John Edward)
“But again, this dweeb never sought to protect his “creative work” nor did he ever seek to protect his likeness.”
Chances are it’s not HIS creative work anyway — someone else probably took the picture. In which case, if he has a copyright complaint, he needs to dig up the photographer who owns the copyright in the picture and have THAT person complain to Consuermist, because Jandreau has no grounds to make such a complaint.
BTW: Ben, I absolutely loved your response! Using his own snotty language against him was just brilliant!
Could they make the argument that since the Consumerist is a for-profit ad-revenue based website that the use of his picture therefore constitutes a use for financial gain? I’m not being antagonistic or trolling, I’m actually just curious.
Dude’s obviously an asshat, afterall. Regardless of policy violation.
*pokes comment*
something_amazing:
What I neglected to mention in my last post was that Consumerist as a recognized media outlet is entitled to qualified immunity from suit. A recent California Supreme Court case granted some blogs the same rights as reporters in terms of immunity from lawsuit for “fair reporting.” (I’m not going to dig up the citation right now, sorry.)
In any event, Consumerist is a media outlet and subject to qualified immunity from suit. “[N]o cause of action will lie for the ‘[p]ublication of matters in the
public interest, which rests on the right of the public to know and the
freedom of the press to tell it.’ ” (Montana v. San Jose Mercury News
(1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 790, 793.)
It comes down to a balancing act between the Consumerist’s right to free speech and the ass-hat’s right to be free from having his privacy invaded. What really tips the scales in favor of Consumerist (other than the fact that they are a media outlet subject to qualified immunity from suit) is that this guy published his own photograph on the internet. How can he claim that his privacy was invaded when he, himself, put his image out there?
Chances are it’s not HIS creative work anyway — someone else probably took the picture. In which case, if he has a copyright complaint, he needs to dig up the photographer who owns the copyright in the picture and have THAT person complain to Consuermist, because Jandreau has no grounds to make such a complaint.
Normally, yes. But copyright is transferrable. (That’s how, say, a newspaper can own the copyright to the pictures and articles that appear in it.) So, disregarding fair use, he could in theory have a copyright claim, even if he didn’t take the picture.
“…I’m normal, I swear…I’m a big fan of just kicking back and listening to some tunes, and relaxing. The best days are relaxing days, listening to that new cd you can’t get out of your head, and not caring about the world.”
Mike=douchebag…
Good stuff. This is why I read Consumerist. (not the recent deluge of insipid personal finance posts)
i would just like to point out that one of his top five favorite movies of all time is Running Scared.
im not here to argue the merits of the film, but of all the films he has seen, Running Scared is one of the top five?
Now it seems as though HE is though “Running Scared”!
Zing!
“But copyright is transferrable. (That’s how, say, a newspaper can own the copyright to the pictures and articles that appear in it.)”
Actually, in the case of newspapers, that’s work for hire copyright. The copyright originates in the newspaper if a photographer on the staff of the paper takes the picture. (Ditto articles.)
GOLD pure fucking gold.
I want to apologize to Lycos and Mike for the 81 death threats and 6 visits to their offices. The OCD was kicking in and I’m all out of my meds.
Fair point (I should know better than to say too much about copyright – the IP area I don’t, uh, focus on. If I ever make mistakes about patents, well, then we have a problem).
But in any case, it’s still a transferrable right, as a general rule. I think.
Why don’t these people try reading the blog, find out what the site is about and what the people who run it are all about, and get their stuff together before sending Consumerist an e-mail demanding that they do anything?
Had he done that he’d known that:
1) The people who run this site and comment here either know the law or at least know better than to believe something is a law because you said so.
2) Consumerist posts e-mails so just sending one would result in a new post about himself.
3) Most of the people commenting on that story agreed he had a right to do what he did even if they felt like he acted like a jerk. Some even sided with him.
If he’d bothered trying to find out who he was dealing with he’d known that not only had he fared better than most but that sending the e-mail could only make things worse. But no, he has to insult everyone’s intelligence by claiming federal law backs him up here.
Now everyone thinks he’s a jerk. Good job.
Are all 81 death threats from the same person?
major disaster wrote:
True, and licensable. However, copyright can only be transfered in writing. It seems doubtful that the photo in question was commissioned as work for hire by Mr. Jandreau or that he has a written copyright transfer. But it is also easily possible that the photo was taken by Mr Jandreau himself using a webcam on his monitor.
In any case, he has not asserted copyright in his letter nor has he submitted a DMCA takedown notice which suggests he does not believe he owns the copyright to the photo. (This leads to an aside: who owns the copyright to the images in a video chat? Who technically created the photos? What if the receiver used the remote framing control available on some webcams? Would that make them the “creator” of the image?)
I wonder if his boss has seen this yet.
Regardless of how he received the picture, he is likely the copyright holder on it. Remember that one doesn’t need to claim copyright on a creative work — copyright exists as soon as that creative work exists.
I suspect it’s unlikely fair use would apply here, but it’s possible. IANA(C)L, so that’s up to Gawker’s armada of litigators to determine. But really, someone who works at Lycos should know better than to request something be (I paraphrase here) “removed from the Internet.”
Regardless, I think he’s cute. I’d tap that (God I hate that phrase), although I wouldn’t want to discuss movies with him.
I don’t think that follows. Copyright doesn’t have “protect it or lose it” rules like trademark. Copyright is automatic whenever a work is fixed in tangible form; and it doesn’t lapse unless the copyright holder deliberately puts the work into the public domain. Just publishing something, even online, doesn’t put it into the public domain.
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!
Also, I don’t think using a tinyURL in a removal request would be valid from a legal standpoint: Consumerist has no control over what tinyURL does or points to, and the letter doesn’t state an actual location that Consumerist has control over (just a general assertion that it’s on Consumerist.com).
I’d reject the request on the tinyURL basis alone, never mind the poorly constructed “Federal Law” demand.