No Fark for you!

April 26, 2007 12:54 PM

We may not have Fark to kick around anymore:

Text comments, AudioEdit submissions, and Photoshopped images posted on Fark by registered users may not be reposted or broadcast without the express written permission or license from Fark.com, and must attribute Fark.com as the source.

via
posted by Kirth Gerson to MetaFilter-related at 12:54 PM (46 comments total)

Ya know, I hadn't looked at Fark in a year before seeing this, but come on, you could at least include his side of the story: "Drew:
Short version: current language has been in place since 2005, we don't claim to own submitted PS, AE, Farktography stuff etc. Language needs some cleaning, we're on it. Rock on Cleveland"
posted by These Premises Are Alarmed at 12:57 PM on April 26, 2007

MetaFilter: It's not Fark, it's MetaFilter.
posted by phatkitten at 12:58 PM on April 26, 2007 [2 favorites]

I assume you have written permission to quote this here.
posted by cillit bang at 1:04 PM on April 26, 2007 [2 favorites]

er, when did fark change its layout?
posted by popechunk at 1:06 PM on April 26, 2007

Yesterday, I think.
posted by chiababe at 1:10 PM on April 26, 2007

Do we need the express written consent of Major League Baseball as well?
posted by jonmc at 1:19 PM on April 26, 2007 [1 favorite]

The BoingBoing argument for the policy is illogical. How can they claim copyright protection of material that they don't necessarily own the copyright to? If a PhotoShop contest includes an entry where, say, someone PSed Mickey Mouse into it, they don't have ownership or the copyright to Mickey Mouse, and if they tried to market it Disney would sue them, not the entry poster. The only- ONLY thing Fark could legally claim by submission are wholly original works by its users.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 1:19 PM on April 26, 2007

PlagiarismToday's commentary actually involves things like law.
posted by mendel at 1:23 PM on April 26, 2007

once they moved the boobie content on to their other site, they became very very similar to what MetaFilter is now. with less YouTube, I'm afraid.
posted by matteo at 1:24 PM on April 26, 2007

"To be copyrightable, a derivative work must be different enough from the original to be regarded as a 'new work' or must contain a substantial amount of new material."

[...]
"The copyright in a derivative work covers only the additions, changes, or other new material appearing for the first time in the work. It does not extend to any preexisting material and does not imply a copyright in that material."

[...]

"In any case where a protected work is used unlawfully, that is, without the permission of the owner of copyright, copyright will not be extended to the illegally used part."

That's from the US Copyright Office.

My understanding of that is that if you create a Photoshop job of Mickey Mouse blowing you, you still own the copyright to the picture of your knob, but not the Mickey Mouse part. In other words, works don't have to be wholly original or even legal in order to have some copyright protection.
posted by L. Fitzgerald Sjoberg at 1:29 PM on April 26, 2007

Wow, they're all web2.0 now. Still really ugly though.
posted by delmoi at 1:46 PM on April 26, 2007

"er, when did fark change its layout?"

Yesterday, and boy-oh-boy is it unpopular. Fark's launch of the new layout could well be a textbook example of how not to roll out a new design.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 1:53 PM on April 26, 2007

Oh, boobies are elsewhere now? That'd be foobies.com then, I guess. Hmm, why do they bother with even typing "NSFW"?
posted by iguanapolitico at 1:58 PM on April 26, 2007

Wow. That is one of the most poorly conceived pieces of legal text I've ever seen. Somebody's got a bad lawyer, or else, somebody's lawyer slept through copyright class.

Or maybe, just maybe, Alberto Gonzales and John Yoo advised Fark on a radical revisionist unitary theory of intellectual property law.
posted by kosem at 2:02 PM on April 26, 2007 [1 favorite]

The agreement also prohibits any quoting of Fark submissions, message board posts etc, without ever mentioning fair use.

Bogus. You can't not allow fair use. BoingBoing is reading in to this a bit much.
posted by niles at 2:03 PM on April 26, 2007

Though actually, Fark does say you can't use anything without permission. Maybe someone needs to remind them about fair use.
*shrug*

posted by niles at 2:05 PM on April 26, 2007

Do we need the express written consent of Major League Baseball as well?-jonmc

No, implied verbal consent is fine.

/simpsons
posted by Mister_A at 2:29 PM on April 26, 2007 [1 favorite]

From the via (BoingBoing) link:

"Update: Fark's Drew Curtis has gone on record saying that this agreement isn't good and will be fixed soonest -- great news!

We’re not, we’re asking for a non-exclusive right to republish. Submitters still own their submissions, we’re asking for reprint rights in case we can use it. We have no intention of acquiring ownership of submission"

posted by ericb at 2:50 PM on April 26, 2007

Web 2.0? Looks like a regression. Were they going for the slashdot aesthetic?
posted by Firas at 2:56 PM on April 26, 2007

"er, when did fark change its layout?"

Yesterday, and boy-oh-boy is it unpopular. Fark's launch of the new layout could well be a textbook example of how not to roll out a new design.

Many long-time users, including myself, canceled our subscriptions in protest. True, it is relatively easy to renew, but the true heart of the problem is one of the mods response to a slew of complaints was "You'll get over it."

Too bad really, I love both of these places. I get my intellectual fix while at work by lurking mefi and then get my Duh-gur-stampa-stampa fix at home lurking on Fark.
posted by Big_B at 3:34 PM on April 26, 2007

What's so bad about it that you would cancel? It was always pretty ugly, but it doesn't look that different. Not nearly as bad as SA's redesign. What are big the complaints? It seems (to an admitted outsider) like it's just a little different, and you would get used to it.
posted by team lowkey at 4:31 PM on April 26, 2007

Is this kicking around Fark something I would need an IQ to care about?
posted by Eideteker at 4:41 PM on April 26, 2007 [1 favorite]

Apparently, the copyright blurb came to light because it became a lot more visible in the new format. But a few months ago, when was I playing around with 'photoslopping', I entered a few of their contest AND WON ONE before I read their Terms of Disservice and decided "Fark You, Drew"; maybe if you hosted the images like Worth1000 does, you'd have some claim to something...

I wonder if this might be a good time to re-boot my "photoslop.com" domain as a "keep your own copyright photochoppin' contest" site. Just as long as I don't use Photoshop®™© as a verb.
posted by wendell at 4:42 PM on April 26, 2007

I like the new Fark format myself; it looks more like a professional website (which I suspect is what some users don't like). It's easier to read (maybe some Farkers have just noticed what the content really is!) but its navigation is a little awkward (especially with clicking story links vs. comment links... maybe some Farkers who just want to make uninformed comments are accidentally RTFAing). Okay, enough Fark-bashing for now. Wanna hear what I think of BoingBoing?
posted by wendell at 4:52 PM on April 26, 2007

Are those navigation tabs, or a gay pride parade?
posted by Saucy Intruder at 5:07 PM on April 26, 2007

*kicks Fark around, for old times sake*
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:19 PM on April 26, 2007

Bogus. You can't not allow fair use.

Would that it were true!
posted by rkent at 7:52 PM on April 26, 2007

the true heart of the problem is one of the mods response to a slew of complaints was "You'll get over it."

And that alone was enough to get a lot of people all butt-hurt and canceling subscriptions. A typically snarky comment from that particular mod, on a site known for snarky comments. They were forced to put him on Double Secret Probation from the site, due to the outcry over those four words.

*sigh* it really is a "post-Imus world" after all, I fear. Can we channel the Collective Internet Outrage into something productive and useful now? End the war, hire new leaders, that sort of thing?
posted by First Post at 8:29 PM on April 26, 2007

What's going on here?
posted by Burhanistan at 8:39 PM on April 26, 2007

A car powered by internet outrage would be bitchin'!
posted by BeerFilter at 9:15 PM on April 26, 2007 [1 favorite]

What's going on here?

Fuck if I know. Wait, forgot a comma: Fuck, if I know.
posted by maxwelton at 9:16 PM on April 26, 2007

Well for me it wasn't the words that started it, it was the design. It simply doesn't work. One of the only sites I have seen that can crash firefox. And the white background is really bad on the eyes. The comment was the final straw. Imagine if mathowie or Jess walked into a bitch fest and said "get over it we don't care" instead of their usual "Hold on, we're trying to fix it."

I'll freely admit that regular fark (farklite, if you will) is filled with a huge mix of people - right and left-wing nutjobs, general assholes and idiots, and people that just call it their little home - each trying to get a laugh out of each other and post the next big cliche. But TotalFark is a lot different. There are a lot of absolutely hilarious threads and isome really good intellectual conversation. There is a seemingly always present core group, and then quite a few lurkers that chime in time to time. I find it very similar to mefi, but quite a bit more diverse.

I canceled my subscription in protest, and with the supposed sacking of one of the admins it seems those that raised a stink with our wallets might have been heard. I know I'll reup eventually, but I want to see the issues with the design resolved.
posted by Big_B at 9:17 PM on April 26, 2007

I am sure this will work amazingly well for them.
posted by Many bubbles at 9:33 PM on April 26, 2007

Drew is basically turning it into a product instead of a community. Granted, it wasn't that great of a place to begin with, now its turning into the Bush Administration of community blogs. I am glad I didn't get attached to that place as much as I did here. With his book due out in June, Curtis had to go pimp his site to be hip and step on every bodies toes in the process. Change is a scary thing sometimes, but this makes me thankful for places like here, where we hold redesign contests before any changes are made. Thanks all for making this a fun experience.
posted by wheelieman at 9:48 PM on April 26, 2007

Curtis had to go pimp his site to be hip

In my professional and considered opinion, a drunken syphilitic waterhead monkey with his head up his neighbour's ass could have done a better redesign job.

Hip, the new look most definitely ain't. What it is, though, is ugly as sin, '95-stylee, and thus absolutely perfect for Fark.

*kicks Fark around again, 'cause it feels so good*
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 9:56 PM on April 26, 2007

What's so bad about it that you would cancel?

Well, I haven't been to Fark in something like a year or more, but to me it looks like that "sidebar" is just an excuse for the bigass Maxim ad.
posted by dirigibleman at 10:40 PM on April 26, 2007

I am glad I didn't get attached to that place as much as I did here. With his book due out in June, Curtis had to go pimp his site to be hip and step on every bodies toes in the process. Change is a scary thing sometimes, but this makes me thankful for places like here

I think it is less about Drew and more about the numbers.

It seems inevitable that the more users your site gains, the more your site sucks, because a certain percentage of those people are going to suck, and it doesn't take many of them to bring the level of discourse down somewhat.

Many people on MeFi maintain, for example, that it was better here when there weren't as many people and membership was closed. There is still a bit of leftover resentment here and there toward people with high user numbers. Those folks' perception of things might differ greatly from someone with, say, a 25k+ userid. Then imagine what it would feel like here to that 25k+ user if, years from now, there are a crapload of faceless MeFi mods and over a million registered users (with radically different ideas about what constitutes a good FPP).

As for Fark, they are making changes already based on the suggestions they are getting, and a good chunk of the people who were leaving yesterday are saying they're gonna hang around now and see what happens. So at least a few posters there did get over it, I guess.
posted by First Post at 11:54 PM on April 26, 2007

TotalFark is a lot different. There are a lot of absolutely hilarious threads and isome really good intellectual conversation.

Are you serious?
My only experience with TotalFark is finding "new" threads that have had 20 comments worth of bullshit spewed in them with no reality checks because they weren't open to a wider field of people. The most obvious counter-arguments left on the shelves. An echo chamber...

Wait, were you saying it's like MeFi?
posted by dreamsign at 1:10 AM on April 27, 2007

Wasn't the background white before? I guess it's different in the totalfark world, but on the front page (which I used to visit daily, lo those many years ago* before I discovered metafilter) it looks like they just left justified and moved the left bar to the right side. Sure, that allows for wider ads, but that seems better than being surrounded by ads. It looks cleaner and not at all drastic.** Or has it changed a lot since the initial unveiling? It just seems like a hell of a backlash over a fairly minor redesign. It must have been the management of the change that really failed. So website admins take note. You had Kuro5hin as an example of "How not to deal with trolls" and now Fark as an example of "How not to deal with a redesign".

* holy shit, I've been reading this site for like 6 years. And I'm a n00b!
** I'm not saying it's good, just that it was never a beauty queen, and this isn't that different.
posted by team lowkey at 1:36 AM on April 27, 2007

mr_crash_davis: "Yesterday, and boy-oh-boy is it unpopular. Fark's launch of the new layout could well be a textbook example of how not to roll out a new design."

*flips to chapter eight in the Fark textbook*
"How Not To Roll Out A New Design. People don't like change. Don't ever roll it out." End of chapter.

Huh, that was a simpler lesson than I expected.
posted by Plutor at 4:44 AM on April 27, 2007

There are nicer ways to say "you'll get used to it" though.

Ideally, you support both formats for a while, and then silently kill the old one in a month or two.
posted by smackfu at 5:22 AM on April 27, 2007

Usually with a complex redesigned website, going back is not really an option any more than changing a piece of software's new interface to look more like the old one is. There's too much specific stuff coded to the way the new site works.
posted by Firas at 6:23 AM on April 27, 2007

Those folks' perception of things might differ greatly from someone with, say, a 25k+ userid.

You must have missed out when Matt opened registration to the, IIRC, 16k-17k crop of users. Produced some entertaining, "OMG, THE GOLDEN AGE OF MEFI IS OVER!!! THE END ID NEIGH!!!" posts. back then, the same idea was used, only with 10k+ userid's having a different (and hence, wrong!) perception on things.
posted by jmd82 at 7:09 AM on April 27, 2007

Wow, that something awful redesign is terrible. I haven't been to fark in long enough that I forget what the old design looked like. In any case, that new one doesn't bother me.
posted by Kwine at 8:31 AM on April 27, 2007

Yeah, I'm an occasional farker myself and the new design (though it's getting slightly better now that they're tweaking it) just reeks. It seems to screw with firefox totally out of proportion to the size of the page, too. I don't know if I'll cancel my sub, but if they can't make the tf page render in a non-geological timespan I might out of sheer lack of use.
posted by Skorgu at 9:12 AM on April 27, 2007

This has been Fark's policy for at least a couple of years, IIRC. It's one of the reasons I stopped commenting and photoshopping there. (Those familiar with my MetaFilter posts will be able to easily figure out the single subject of all my photoshops.)

I still read Fark, however, in part because I think its collective mindset tracks the American zeitgeist more closely that MetaFilter's. (MetaFilter is, not to put too fine a point on it, more liberal and more educated.) Notable is the increase, on Fark, of Bush-bashing and decline in Bush apologists over the last two years, and the conversion of Republicans to anger/disgust/frustration with Bush. (That's happened here too, but to a much lesser extent, presumably because many Mefites tended to have solidified their opinions pre-2004.)

When I want to know what the net-saavy but not techno-geek 18-35 year old demographic is thinking, I check Fark. (I especially enjoy seeing the same story on Fark and MetaFilter, in order to compare the two sites' "consensus" opinions.)

When I first saw Fark's new format, I assumed it was an intentional parody of MySpace, a late April Fool's joke that would disappear in a few days. I mean, it's rainbow ugly and boxy, just like MySpace.
posted by orthogonality at 2:53 PM on April 29, 2007